Does Explaining an Action Justify It?

Someone sends an unapproved report early because they fear missing a review deadline. That fear helps explain why they pressed send. Yet the report could mislead its recipients, and that fact still matters when judging whether sending it was appropriate.

Contemporary philosophy of action commonly distinguishes the reason that motivates an agent, considerations that explain an action, and normative reasons that count in favour of acting. T. M. Scanlon characterises a normative reason as a consideration supporting an action. The same consideration may both motivate and support what someone does, as when a verified result needs to be shared promptly. In other cases, a motive explains the act without justifying it. Philosophers continue to debate what reasons are and how motivating and normative reasons relate; this contemporary classification should not simply be attributed to ancient thinkers.

My view is that explanation should recover the circumstances of an action, then ask whom it affected and whether a better feasible course existed. We can understand someone's anxiety while still judging that they should not have sent an unapproved report. Treating understanding and justification as identical makes evaluation less accurate and discourages us from taking another person's situation seriously.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/