The justificatory problem is the problem of satisfactorily answering the question "why be moral?" This "contractarian" project is reductionist in a pretty straightforward sense: it derives moral reasons from non-moral ones.
Humor is reductionist, and to be funny she reduced "wife" to a list of chores.
A second reply is reductionist, and it simply denies the slogan.
Neither the work of Rosen nor the thought of Rorty is reductionist; rather they are both context dependent.
Public outcry about the Broncos offense is as ridiculous as it is reductionist, especially when it comes to Manning.
Critics argue that these are reductionist measures that leave out more than they convey.
Let's concede that this kind of comparison can be reductionist.
But as we have already noted, Shaftesbury did not reduce beauty to subjective mental states, while Hutcheson's account of beauty may be reductionist in this way (i.e., ultimately based on the experience of the pleasures of an internal sense of beauty).
Note that this is a reductionist view of existence, both actual and non-actual possible.
And this wouldn't be a "big deal" if it weren't for that fact this is the reductionist vision most Americans have of Lincoln already thanks to the most basic of compulsory public school educations.
