Source: (2006) In Michael W. Dowdle, Ed., Public Accountability, Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 220 - 242.

"As rational beings we cannot but aim at excellence in rationality. The only way we have to question that aim -- by asking "What reason do I have to excel at rationality?" -- already concedes the aim by demanding a reason, by demanding that the case for rationality be made rationally. And of course at that point rationality makes its own case: what else could we have reason to do, or think, or feel, but whatever reason would have us do, or think, or feel? So as rational beings -- beings who are able to follow reasons -- we cannot but want to follow reasons -- to excel in rationality. One implication of this, among many, is that as rational beings we cannot but want our lives to have made rational sense, to add up to a story not only of whats but of whys. We cannot but want there to have been adequate r3asons why we did (or thought or felt) what we did (or thought or felt). You will not be surprised to hear that, at least where our actions are concerned, these rational explanations come in two different flavors, namely the justificatory flavor and the excusatory flavor."... (excerpt)