<p>Raz’s influential notion of exclusionary reasons is a conceptual resource that would allow us to understand the normative nature of important political, legal, and social phenomena such as authority, promises, and rules. However, the existence of second-order reasons has been attacked on motivational grounds. According to this motivational objection, while there are reasons to perform some actions, there cannot be normative reasons about our acting for reasons, since we cannot be motivated to act by them. Here, I defend exclusionary reasons from this motivational charge. I shall argue that exclusionary reasons are able to rightly guide intentional omissions, insofar as belief in such reasons may be linked to states of omissive or negative intentions whose main role is to serve as causal blockers.</p>