Proof-theoretical investigation highlights how grounds relate to reasons, suggesting a framework for logical consistency.
The key idea of this paper is that grounds are a special kind of reasons, so their logic is part of the logic of reasons. We outline a natural deduction calculus that provides a basic formal characterization of reasons and enables us to obtain some distinctive and relatively uncontentious principles about grounds. Then we show that the calculus outlined is consistent and decidable, which we take to be an interesting result in its own right.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Genco et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: