TY - JOUR AB - 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. AU - Laurier, Daniel DO - 10.5840/forphil200813110 KW - inference; commitment; attitudes toward entitlement; responsibility; reasoning (logic) M1 - 1 M3 - Article N1 - Brandom, Robert B. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Brandom, Robert B. “Modality, Normativity and Intentionality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, no. 3 (2001): 587–609. Broome, John. “Normative Requirements.” In Normativity, edited by Jonathan Dancy, 78–99, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. Broome, John. “Reasons.” In Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz, edited by R. Jay Wallace et al., 28–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Dancy, Jonathan, ed. Normativity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. Millar, Alan. Understanding People: Normativity and Rationalizing Explanation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Rosen, Gideon. “Brandom on Modality, Normativity and Intentionality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, no. 3 (2001): 611–623. doi:10.2307/3071158. Sosa, Ernest, and Enrique Villanueva, eds. Philosophical Issues 15: Normativity. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Wallace, R. Jay, et al., eds. Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. White, Heath. “Brandom on Practical Reason.” The Philosophical Quarterly 53, no 213 (2003): 566–572. doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00332. PY - 2008 SN - 1426-1898 (paper) 2353-7043 (online) SP - 127–145 ST - Making “Reasons” Explicit. How Normative is Brandom's Inferentialism? T2 - Forum Philosophicum TI - Making “Reasons” Explicit. How Normative is Brandom's Inferentialism? UR - http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33116050&lang=pl&site=ehost-live http://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=forphil&id=forphil_2008_0013_0001_0127_0145 VL - 13 ID - 119 ER -