在信念的伦理学领域，信念规范理由的实用主义认为存在支持或反对信念的实用规范理由而反实用主义认为不存在这类理由。实用主义主要通过一系列案例激发直觉，而反实用主义则一方面采取各种策略瓦解案例对实用主义的支持，一方面提出论证指出实用主义的问题。我对其中两个反实用主义论证和实用主义对它们的现有和可能回应作出考察，并论证这些回应均面临问题。反实用主义的组合论证认为，考虑到认知理由和所谓的实用理由在作出裁决时表现出完全异质的特性，实用主义者无法解释实用理由如何和认知理由一起决定我们应该相信什么。实用主义对此的现有和可能回应有的会输出反直觉的结论，有的则不得不承诺争议巨大的观点。反实用主义的驱动论证则认为，规范性理由必须能够驱动人们照此行事，但信念只能受证据驱动而不能受实用理由驱动，因此不存在信念的实用理由。实用主义者对此提出，即使信念必须要有证据才可能，这仍不排除真正驱动信念的是实用理由而非证据。但这些回应面临各种严重困难，在最好情况下也不过是延续争论僵局，而较差的情况下则会反而导致对实用主义不利的结论。由于这两个论证是当下实用主义争论的两个主要战场，实用主义在目前的争论中地位极为不利。

Within the field of the ethics of belief, pragmatism of normative doxastic reasons argues that there are practical normative reasons for or against belief, while anti-pragmatism denies that there are reasons of such kind. Pragmatism generally induces our intuition by a series of cases, while anti-pragmatism adopts various strategies to break down the supportive force that pragmatism can benefit from the cases, and wages arguments, pointing out the problems of pragmatism. I examine two of these anti-pragmatist arguments as well as existing and possible pragmatist replies to them, and argue that all these replies face problems.The combinatorial argument against pragmatism holds that, considering that epistemic reasons and the so-called practical reasons show characteristics that are fundamentally heterogeneous when yielding verdicts, a pragmatist cannot explain how practical reasons could decide what we should believe together with epistemic reasons. Existing as well as possible pragmatist replies to this face problems: one would yield counter-intuitive conclusions, while the other has to be committed to a very controversial thesis. The motivating argument against pragmatism holds that, it must be possible for a normative reason to motivate people to do accordingly, while beliefs can only be motivated by evidence, not practical reasons, therefore there are not practical doxastic reasons. To this pragmatists argue that even if beliefs are only possible with evidence, this does not rule out that what really motivate a belief are practical reasons rather than evidence. But these replies face serious problems. They, at their very best, would merely extend the dialectical deadlock. In worse cases, they would conversely lead to conclusions unfavourable to pragmatism.Since the two arguments are two of the main battlefields in the current debate around pragmatism, pragmatism faces great disadvantage in current debates.