Brandom Without Entitlement
Author: Santiago Napoli (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) — a punchy, targeted intervention in Brandom scholarship.
Summary
This article examines the role of “entitlement” in Robert Brandom’s deontic scorekeeping account of discursive agency. Napoli tests how dispensable entitlement is relative to Brandom’s other central notion, commitment. He develops three deflationary manoeuvres: a strong reading (commitment alone), a standard reading (entitlement subordinate to commitment), and a weak reading (mutual determination but with commitment dominant in one respect). The paper argues that treating entitlement as less central can simplify and potentially strengthen Brandom’s model, and it uncovers implicit moral assumptions embedded in the account of normative pragmatics.
Key Points
- Core claim: entitlement may be irrelevant, subsidiary, or less relevant than commitment in Brandom’s deontic scorekeeping model.
- NapoIi articulates three versions of the entitlement-deflation argument: strong, standard, and weak.
- The analysis gives priority to commitment as the more theoretically robust notion for explaining discursive agency.
- Showing entitlement’s dispensability opens the possibility of a leaner, more robust normative-pragmatic framework.
- The paper reveals moral foundations implicit in Brandom’s model, linking descriptive moves to normative commitments.
- Results refine our internal understanding of Brandomian inferentialism and its resources for speech-act theory and normativity.
Context and Relevance
Napoli’s paper speaks directly to specialists in inferentialism, speech-act theory, and normativity. It engages with a central debate in Brandom studies — how to balance notions like entitlement and commitment in scorekeeping accounts — and connects to wider discussions about the normative structure of assertion and rule-following. By offering a taxonomy of deflationary moves, the article helps clarify which elements of Brandom’s framework are essential and which might be streamlined, a useful step for anyone building on or critiquing analytic pragmatism.
Why should I read this?
Short answer: if you tinker with Brandom, speech acts, or normativity, this paper punches above its weight. Napoli saves you the hassle of wading through the entire deontic-scorekeeping apparatus by testing whether “entitlement” really pulls its weight — spoiler: commitment looks a lot tougher. If you want a sharper, leaner take on Brandom that teases out moral assumptions and practical payoffs, this is worth your time.
Source
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jtsb.70011
