z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Making “Reasons” Explicit. How Normative is Brandom's Inferentialism?
Author(s) -
Daniel Laurier
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
forum philosophicum
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2353-7043
pISSN - 1426-1898
DOI - 10.35765/forphil.2008.1301.10
Subject(s) - normative , entitlement (fair division) , deontic logic , obligation , epistemology , articulation (sociology) , character (mathematics) , sociology , philosophy , psychology , political science , law , mathematics , mathematical economics , geometry , politics
This paper asks whether Brandom has provided a sufficiently clear account of the basic normative concepts of commitment and entitlement, on which his normative inferentialism seems to rest, and of how they contribute to explain the inferential articulation of conceptual contents. I show that Brandom's claim that these concepts are analogous to the concepts of obligation and permission cannot be right, and argue that the normative character of the concept of commitment is dubious. This leads me to replace Brandom's conception of inferential relations as relations between deontic statuses with one according to which they are to be seen as relations between entitlements and acknowledgements of commitments.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here