  Notice that PFN judgments are still relational in form: they assert  that a relation (the “favoring” relation) holds between  the set of considerations ⟨r1,  …, rn⟩ and doing a. Indeed,  the relational character of a PFN judgment remains even if we make it as comprehensive as we can: if we expand the set  ⟨r1, …, rn⟩ to incorporate all the considerations the agent deems  relevant to her decision. Following Davidson (p. 38), let us  give the label e to that set. So even the following  judgment: