It is widely agreed that logic plays some normative role in (deductive) reasoning. In my talk, I distinguish between two levels at which logic is normative: a general epistemic commitment to logical coherence, and many normative principles generated by the laws of logic, which prescribe that our beliefs display certain patterns. Logical pluralism is the view that there are different and equally good logics. I contend that logical pluralism faces a distinctive challenge in articulating the second level of normativity. I present three different ways in which logical pluralism can address the challenge and evaluate them on the basis of their costs and benefits.