Actually, two questions:
A. Is the following inference valid, according to your view on reasons?
B. Is the following inference valid, according to Scanlon's view on reasons?
1. X= Y
eg. talking to Maffettone = talking to the biggest expert on J. Rawls in Italy)
2. I have a reason to X
e.g I have a reason to talk to the biggest expert on J. Rawls in Italy. (Suppose I am writing a thesis on J.Rawls
3. I have a reason to Y
(I have a reason to talk to Maffettone)
even if I do not know, and I cannot possibly know that X = Y,
e.g. because I do not know whether Maffettone is the biggest expert on J.Rawls in Italy, and (let us suppose, even if it sounds odd) there is no way to know this.