Does T2 establish T1? In my book I expressed strong reservations about the sort of use of the notion of a conclusion that we see in T1, suggesting that we should prefer T2 to T1. Admittedly, I do still allow T1 as an incautious expression of my position. The main thrust of my book, however, is to establish T2. Raz says that I mistakenly believe that if there is reason for something then that something can be the conclusion of reasoning with the relevant reasons as its premises (last paragraph of §2). This is a mistake, apparently, because there can be

中文翻译：

---

对我的批评者的回应

T2是否建立T1？在我的书中，我对在T1中看到的结论的概念的使用表示了强烈的保留，这表明我们应该更喜欢T2而不是T1。诚然，我仍然允许T1作为我立场的不恰当表达。但是，我书的主要目的是建立T2。拉兹说，我错误地认为，如果有某件事的理由，那么某件事可以是推理的结论，并以相关理由为前提（§2的最后一段）。显然，这是一个错误，因为可能存在