 The role of past experience in present moral deliberation complicates the particularist’s claim that moral beliefs are justified a priori. On the one hand, particularists claim that past experience plays an important role in deliberation, even for the morally mature agent—for instance, one often judges that R is a reason in the present context because R was a reason in a relevantly similar context in the past (see the entry on  Dancy’s moral particularism).  But on the other hand, the belief one arrives at through this kind of reflection on past experience is nevertheless a priori, according to particularists. How can we make sense of the conjunction of these two claims?