Is rationality normative?

Rationality requires various things of you. For example, it requires you not to have contradictory beliefs, and to intend what you believe is a necessary means to an end that you intend. Suppose rationality requires you to F. Does this fact constitute a reason for you to F? Does it even follow from this fact that you have a reason to F? I examine these questions and reach a sceptical conclusion about them. I can find no satisfactory argument to show that either has the answer 'yes'. I consider the idea that rationality is normative for instrumental reasons, because it helps you to achieve some of the things you ought to achieve. I also consider the idea that rationality consists in responding correctly to reasons. I reject both. 1. The normative question Rationality requires various things of you. For example, it requires you not to have contradictory beliefs, to believe what follows by modus ponens from things you believe, to intend what you believe to be a necessary means to an end that you intend, and to intend to do what you believe you ought to do. These are only rough formulations, and rough formulations are perhaps enough for this paper. However, for the sake of accuracy, I shall give more formal statements of the requirement that you believe what follows by modus ponens from things you believe, and the requirement that you intend to do what you believe you ought to do. These ones will come up later in the paper. They are: Modus ponens. Rationality requires of N that, if N believes p and N believes that if p then q, and if it matters to N whether q, then N believes q. Krasia. Rationality requires of N that, if N believes that she herself ought to F, and if N believes that she herself will F if and only if she herself intends to F, then N intends to F.