Full Idea
We are pluralists about logical consequence because we take there to be a number of different consequence relations, each reflecting different precisifications of the pre-theoretic notion of deductive logical consequence.
Gist of Idea
There are several different consequence relations
Source
JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Pluralism [2006], 8)
Book Reference
Beall,J/Restall,G: 'Logical Pluralism' [OUP 2006], p.88
A Reaction
I don't see how you avoid the slippery slope that leads to daft logical rules like Prior's 'tonk' (from which you can infer anything you like). I say that nature imposes logical conquence on us - but don't ask me to prove it.