From Normative Legislation to Conceptual Game: A Reconstruction of Practical Ethics Based on Power-Divergence

Faced with the dilemma of foundationalist dogmatism and relativist anomie that traditional normative ethics falls into in the era of value pluralism, this paper proposes a radical paradigm shift. It argues that the validity basis of ethics does not lie in the search for transcendental normative principles, but should be established on the dynamic re-examination of ethical phenomena themselves. We hold that ethics is essentially not a priori imperatives or universal values, but a temporary "stability" achieved through the game interaction of generalized "power" (realization capacity) among embodied "concepts" carried by diverse and heterogeneous "ethical units" (individuals, groups, institutions, systems) in specific historical and social arenas. Based on the philosophical system of "reflexive pluralism", this paper systematically constructs an analytical framework centered on the "concept-power-stability" triad, and reveals that the essence of ethical change lies in the competitive succession of different concepts in the field of power. Furthermore, this paper reorients the role of philosophers: they are no longer detached "legislators" or "navigators", but "methodological participants" who consciously engage in conceptual games. Their task is to use a meta-methodological toolbox including ecological mapping, divergence diagnosis, and strategic intervention to defend and practice the values they believe in more soberly and effectively. Finally, this paper argues that this approach liberates practical ethics from the metaphysical burden of pursuing ultimate norms, and turns it into a practical philosophy that cultivates "combatant sobriety" characterized by responsibility, resilience, and strategic wisdom amid eternal value conflicts.