Abstract

This chapter uses two empirical examples of political decision-making to clarify the distinction between reasons that can outweigh and override others, and draw attention to a particular set of “modifiers”, as circumstances that can increase or decreasing the weight of reasons in deliberation. I will draw on the literature on weighing reasons, particularly on Dancy (2004) and Marraud (2020, 2024, 2025). Following Searle (2010), I see deontic reasons (e.g. obligations) as overriding in principle (crucially, due to collectively recognized institutional orders, backed by power) but not necessarily in practice, where they can be (reasonably or unreasonably) set aside. In a multi-party deliberative situation, what one party takes to be an overriding reason that rebuts a proposal (i.e. being an alleged decisive objection against that proposal) may be taken by another party as merely a reason that can be outweighed by allegedly weightier reasons in favour of another conclusion. The allegedly stronger argument will thus claim to refute the weaker one. As overriding reasons, deontic reasons (e.g. the obligations created by a promise or an order) – though intuitively weighty reasons – are unlike other reasons, in that they cannot have more weight for one agent and less for another. What can be weighed differently by different people is, in my view, not the obligation as such, as fact, but the perceived potential consequences of acting on it, in relation to the consequences of ignoring it and acting on allegedly weightier other reasons. A way of blunting the rebutting force of alleged decisive objections is by weakening their strength (or weight) via interventions made on the context of action. “Modifiers” are facts about the context that interact with reasons without being reasons. For example, decisive objections against a proposal can be weakened by altering the circumstances of action so as to (allegedly) manage risks, mitigate impacts or insure against the worst possible consequences (Miller, 2013). Thus, they will no longer indicate a proposal has to be abandoned but – its supporters will claim – can be outweighed by reasons in favour of going ahead with it.