To justify one's actions is to provide reasons, specifically, normative reasons that serve as their foundation. This process involves three key elements: facts, beliefs, and desires. However, the relationship between the latter two (often understood as motivating and epistemic reasons) and the former (the facts) remains a matter of ongoing debate. This paper examines one distinctive approach to addressing this interplay: situationism. Distinct from perspectivism, casuistry, or plain contextualism, situationism offers a framework for understanding the proper place of normative reasons. The paper offers a nuanced defense of the irreducibility thesis—the claim that the truth of normative propositions cannot be reduced to the truth of non-normative facts about the world. In doing so, it argues that each of the three elements plays an essential role in shaping normative reasons for action. Yet, when isolated or taken "on its own," any one of them can be used to justify morally reprehensible courses of action—whether by individuals or collectives. The situationist perspective, by emphasizing the structure of normative rationality, offers a way to better foresee how and where such distortions occur. Ultimately, this approach may help illuminate the wrongness of certain human endeavors, that is, to counter the potential tyranny of any of the three elements in play.
| Published in | International Journal of Philosophy (Volume 14, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11 |
| Page(s) | 67-73 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Situationism, Rationality, Reasoning, Normativity, Justification
| [1] | Broome, J. (2013). Rationality Through Reasoning. Wiley Blackwell. |
| [2] | Dasgupta, P. (2021) The Dasgupta Review: An independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity. Ministry of Economy and Finance of the United Kingdom. |
| [3] | De Greiff, P. (2012). “Theorizing Transitional Justice”. Nagy, R.; Elster, J.; Williams, M. (Eds.). Transitional Justice: NOMOS LI. NYU Press. |
| [4] | Flecther, J. (1967). Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work. SCM Press. |
| [5] | Hume, D. (1985). A Treatise of Human Nature. (E. C. Mossner, Ed.). Penguin Classics. |
| [6] | Korsgaard, C. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press. |
| [7] | Kristjánsson, K. (2012). “Situationism and the Concept of a Situation”. European Journal of Philosophy: S1 pp. e52-e72. |
| [8] | MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose Justice? Which Rationality? University of Notre Dame Press. |
| [9] | Meijer, E. (2003). “Deep Listening and Democracy: Political Listening to Fellow Citizens and Other Beings”. The Philosopher: Where is Philosophy Going? Spring, V. 111, N. 1. |
| [10] | Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press. |
| [11] | Parfit, D. and Broome, J. (1997) “Reasons and Motivation”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 71 (1997), pp. 99-146. |
| [12] | Parfit, D. (2011). On What Matters. Oxford University Press. |
| [13] | Raz, J. (2009). Engaging Reason. Oxford University Press. |
| [14] | Raz, J. (2013). From Normativity to Responsibility. Oxford University Press. |
| [15] | Rawls, J. (2005). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press. |
| [16] | Scanlon, T. (1998). What we Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press. |
| [17] | Scanlon, T. (2014). Being Realistic about Reasons. Oxford University Press. |
| [18] | Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books. |
| [19] | Solís Umaña, M. (2016) Justicia situacional: racionalidad, normatividad y teoría crítica latinoamericanista [Situational Justice: Rationality, Normativity and Latinoamericanist Critical Theory.] San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. |
| [20] | Solís Umaña, M. (2019). “Latin America: Inequality Provoking Critical Thought”. Drydyk, J. & Keleher, J. (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics. Routledge, pp. 369-375. |
| [21] | Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Princeton University Press. |
| [22] | Williams, B. (2006). Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline. Princeton University Press. |
APA Style
Solis, M. (2026). Normative Reasons for Action: The Situationist Approach. International Journal of Philosophy, 14(2), 67-73. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11
ACS Style
Solis, M. Normative Reasons for Action: The Situationist Approach. Int. J. Philos. 2026, 14(2), 67-73. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11,
author = {Mario Solis},
title = {Normative Reasons for Action: The Situationist Approach},
journal = {International Journal of Philosophy},
volume = {14},
number = {2},
pages = {67-73},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijp.20261402.11},
abstract = {To justify one's actions is to provide reasons, specifically, normative reasons that serve as their foundation. This process involves three key elements: facts, beliefs, and desires. However, the relationship between the latter two (often understood as motivating and epistemic reasons) and the former (the facts) remains a matter of ongoing debate. This paper examines one distinctive approach to addressing this interplay: situationism. Distinct from perspectivism, casuistry, or plain contextualism, situationism offers a framework for understanding the proper place of normative reasons. The paper offers a nuanced defense of the irreducibility thesis—the claim that the truth of normative propositions cannot be reduced to the truth of non-normative facts about the world. In doing so, it argues that each of the three elements plays an essential role in shaping normative reasons for action. Yet, when isolated or taken "on its own," any one of them can be used to justify morally reprehensible courses of action—whether by individuals or collectives. The situationist perspective, by emphasizing the structure of normative rationality, offers a way to better foresee how and where such distortions occur. Ultimately, this approach may help illuminate the wrongness of certain human endeavors, that is, to counter the potential tyranny of any of the three elements in play.},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Normative Reasons for Action: The Situationist Approach AU - Mario Solis Y1 - 2026/04/21 PY - 2026 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11 T2 - International Journal of Philosophy JF - International Journal of Philosophy JO - International Journal of Philosophy SP - 67 EP - 73 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-7455 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20261402.11 AB - To justify one's actions is to provide reasons, specifically, normative reasons that serve as their foundation. This process involves three key elements: facts, beliefs, and desires. However, the relationship between the latter two (often understood as motivating and epistemic reasons) and the former (the facts) remains a matter of ongoing debate. This paper examines one distinctive approach to addressing this interplay: situationism. Distinct from perspectivism, casuistry, or plain contextualism, situationism offers a framework for understanding the proper place of normative reasons. The paper offers a nuanced defense of the irreducibility thesis—the claim that the truth of normative propositions cannot be reduced to the truth of non-normative facts about the world. In doing so, it argues that each of the three elements plays an essential role in shaping normative reasons for action. Yet, when isolated or taken "on its own," any one of them can be used to justify morally reprehensible courses of action—whether by individuals or collectives. The situationist perspective, by emphasizing the structure of normative rationality, offers a way to better foresee how and where such distortions occur. Ultimately, this approach may help illuminate the wrongness of certain human endeavors, that is, to counter the potential tyranny of any of the three elements in play. VL - 14 IS - 2 ER -
Philosophy School, University of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica
Information