Theories of practical reasoning which identify reasons for action solely with desires and beliefs so characterized — so-called Humean theories — are directed towards choosing actions, yet incompatible with actions being chosen.
Secondly, for something to be able to claim legitimate authority, it must be capable of forming an opinion on how its subjects ought to behave, distinct from the subjects' own reasoning about their reasons for action; authority requires some authorship.
Rather, it invokes independent principles of practical reasoning that articulate the basic reasons for action.
The first remains very widespread: with Hume, it regards instrumental reasoning as fundamental (cf. practical reason, §4; reasons for action: internal vs. external).
In practical reasoning agents attempt to assess and weigh their reasons for action, the considerations that speak for and against alternative courses of action that are open to them.
It is important for authorities to present clear, understandable reasoning for any action or nonaction taken.
(The presumption that desires or more generally motivations explain action is plausibly a legacy of a theory of practical reasoning on which desires are reasons for actions — and therefore, it is concluded, their causes — but that theory is off-limits to Velleman's project, and should not be appealed to by it, however indirectly).
Finally, we present PHATT's integrated constraint reasoning for parametrized actions and temporal constraints.
Keep the following in mind: significant captures made and not made by the United States and allied governments, the justification for and outcomes of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States' communication with the world regarding its intentions and reasoning for its actions.
On one side, you had Zimmerman who hid behind Florida's infamous stand your ground law as a reasoning for his actions.
Because much of South Carolina's reasoning for their actions was based on the logic of the Kentucky Resolutions, which had been supported by Senator John Breckinridge, Robert Breckinridge now had to determine whether he should support the words of his late father or refute them.
