PhilArchive
open access
The Emergence of Norms in Generative Relational Being: A Preliminary Discussion
A norm differs from a regularity in that people hold one another to it. Where this holding comes from, and whether it can be justified, are treated by two separate literatures: one models the emergence of norms and is silent on justification, the other argues justification and treats emergence as irrelevant. The naturalist takes the division to favour him, arguing that a complete account of emergence renders justification a residue. Normative philosophy answers by invoking the is-ought gap, and thereby concedes the point it means to deny. This paper argues the reverse. A sanction cannot be distinguished from an aggression by any description of the sanctioner's behaviour, the difference being a fact about the configuration in which the act stands. Normative vocabulary therefore appears in the explanans of any emergence mechanism, and a correct account of emergence requires normative philosophy in place of eliminating it. The paper develops a positional account of normative emergence within the Generative Relational Being framework. Composition of relations generates loci occupied by no participant, and bindingness is borne at such a locus and by no relatum. The dyad is accordingly pre-normative. Power is asymmetry, of which interpretive asymmetry is the kind whose monopolization forecloses correction of the others. Generativity is the condition under which valuing occurs and is not itself a value, so the demand to justify it is malformed, and five conditions of normative generation are stated as conditions and not as evaluative criteria. Non-exploitation is derived in place of being imported: a configuration providing no locus at which a participant's excess can register has foreclosed the source of its own further generation, so that the distinction between generation and extraction becomes internal to the mechanism. As a preliminary discussion paper, its aim is to establish the mechanism and to name what the framework must next supply: a composition rule, an account of scale, and an epistemic criterion by which a configuration might determine from within whether it generates or extracts.
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
- A Jurisdictionalist Metaphysics of Collective Rebellion#706495
- Generative Relational Jurisprudence: Legal Form and Justice in Heterogeneous Generative Relational Systems#694280
- Inferenzialismo, pratiche argomentative e oggettività#764888
- The Binary-Gradient Problem in Substrate-Neutral Consciousness Ethics#691348
- Coordination without Final Authority: Structural Axioms of Pluralist Legitimacy#725083
Record · ID 731144
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