Abstract
Are reasons for action facts or psychological states? There are two answers in the
literature on the ontology of reasons. According to the Standard Story, normative reasons are
facts, while motivating reasons are psychological states. According to the factualist, both
normative and motivating reasons are facts. In this paper I argue that neither of these views is
satisfactory. The Standard Story errs in thinking that the two kinds of reasons are different
ontological entities. The factualist gets this right, but incurs some distasteful ontological
commitments by thinking of motivating reasons as facts. We should, thus, give a proper hearing
to the only serious logically possible alternative to the two existing views: both motivating and
normative reasons are psychological states.