Abstract The thesis of meaning normativity has attracted extensive attention in academia. However, various theoretical approaches proposed by normativists remain highly controversial. By drawing on Davidson’s theory of rationality, it can be demonstrated that meaning is inherently normative. Davidson’s theory of rationality shows that possessing an objective concept of truth is both a sufficient and necessary condition for a being to count as rational, which requires language users to achieve maximal agreement in communication, thereby adhering to the correctness conditions of words at a holistic level. Although Davidson’s anti-conventionalism, individualistic tendencies, and presupposition of the constitutive nature of norms have led many scholars to regard him as an anti-normativist, the argument demonstrates that his theoretical framework can be reconciled with the claim of meaning normativity by distinguishing between strong constitutive norms and weak constitutive norms. The constitutive nature of linguistic norms does not exclude the flexible use of specific words, and the requirement of “maximal agreement” provides a holistic foundation for meaning normativity.