PhilArchive
open access
Corrective Ethics Under Constraint: Mediated Authority, Answerability, Burden, and Correction under Finite Action
This paper argues that ethical evaluation of institutions and systems must include not only outcomes, procedures, and formal rules, but also the mediated authority conditions through which cases become governable under finite constraint. Institutions do not act on cases in exhaustive presence, but through selective operative representations—files, charts, scores, categories, thresh- olds, and model outputs—that preserve some structure strongly enough for action while leaving other structure weakly carried, backgrounded, merged, or omitted. Its central claim is that once consequence-bearing authority governs through such renderings, the mediated pathway through which action becomes possible is no longer merely technical background. Because authority reaches the case only through the rendering, defects in that rendering become defects in the act’s mode of address to its object, and are therefore ethically assessable. This matters especially where the governed case is a humanly lived case, or subject-process, whose lived significance is adequacy-relevant. The paper argues that operative representations are interface-shaped, purpose-bound, level-bound, and scope-limited, and that they remain structurally non-identical to the cases they govern. Once authority acts through them, omissions, burden displacements, scope overreach, experiential distortion, and blocked correction partly constitute the mediated act itself. The paper therefore identifies mediated authority as a distinct middle-layer moral object, uses answerability as the bridge from architecture to ethics, and derives lower-bound constraints of non-totalization, scope discipline, traceability, burden sensitivity, experiential responsiveness, and correction responsibility. It is not a complete morality, legitimacy theory, or politics of institutions, but a structural ethical account of how finite systems govern through selective renderings of cases.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Waywardism: A Non-Dogmatic Philosophy for Moral Life A Framework for Distributed Ethical Reasoning#80149
- Moral Inversion and Authority: Power, Responsibility, and the Ethics of Coercion#91758
- Governing Generative Relational Public Knowledge: Provenance, Process Justice, and Institutional Authority#690014
- Propositional Ethics and the Jurisdictional Conditions of Moral Judgment#101905
- _Acting Well in the Dark_: Pareto Principles for Process Welfare#690699
Record · ID 110292
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive