Particularism and Reasons: A Reply to Kirchin

Valency switching can appear especially puzzling if we think of moral reasons

as 'pushes and pulls'—considerations whose job it is to get us to act

or to stop us acting. Talk of 'default valency' doesn't remove the puzzle, it

merely restates it. We need a different picture of reasons—perhaps as

providing a map of the moral terrain which helps us to see which actions

are appropriate to which situations, and who the appropriate agents are.

The role of virtue concepts in particular is more complex and varied than

that of providing 'reasons for acting'. A more holistic picture of reasons

can make valency switching less mysterious.