How Should We Understand the Balancing View of Ought?

Thomas Schmidt argues that a widely held combination of views about reasons and ought—the Balancing View of Ought and the claim that reasons against ϕ are reasons for not-ϕ—is extensionally adequate only if it is complemented by two principles of reasons transmission. This article presents five problems for Schmidt’s package of views and defends a rival package of views—a version of the Balancing View and the claim that reasons against ϕ are reasons that bear on ϕ with negative weight—that friends of the Balancing View should prefer.