This essay identifies a normative function of the concept of intentional action. Specifically, I argue that the concept of intentional action functions to focus our evaluative concern on some doings rather than others. It acts as a proxy for evaluative priority. Two arguments are offered for this thesis. First, we need a concept that functions to focus evaluative concern, and the concept of intentional action exhibits features we'd expect from a concept with this prioritizing function. Second, the (...) thesis is explanatorily powerful: it explains in a unified manner a number of puzzling features of intentional action, including the Knobe effect, the threshold of sufficient control governing intentional action, disagreement over whether knowledge is required for intentional action, cultural variation in ascription of intentionality, and the radical pluralism of ways that intentional action manifests. This second argument also shows what can be gained by attending to the functions of our concepts of agency. (shrink)

G. E. Moore famously pointed out that all sincere assertions of the form ‘p, but I don’t believe that p’ are inherently absurd. John Turri strongly disagrees with the consensus evaluation of such assertions as inherently absurd and offers a counterexample according to which it is possible to say ‘Eliminativism is true, but of course I don’t believe it’s true’ sincerely and without any absurdity. I argue in this paper that Turri’s attempt misses the point entirely, for the most natural (...) interpretations of his counterexample are either absurd or do not represent genuinely Moorean assertions. The critical analysis of Turri’s counterexample will enable me to reach the general conclusion that precludes the possibility of omissive Moorean assertions that are inherently non-absurd, at least if we hold that our assertions ought to have some normative function. (shrink)

A proper function of an entity is a beneficial effect that helps explain the persistence of the entity. Proper functions thereby arise through feedback mechanisms with beneficial effects as inputs and persistence as outputs. We continue to make assertions because they benefit speakers by benefiting speakers. Hearers benefit from true information. Speakers benefit by influencing hearer belief. If hearers do not benefit, they will not form beliefs in response to assertions. Speakers can then only maintain influence by providing true (...) information, often enough. The function of assertion is then inducing true hearer belief. When interests conflict, however, some mechanism must ensure that speakers provide true information often enough, instead of deceiving, or providing information regardless of quality. In humans, a core mechanism stabilizing true assertion involves social norms for truth telling. We tell the truth partly because we prescribe and enforce telling the truth. (shrink)

In her 2007 paper, “Argument Has No Function” Jean Goodwin takes exception with what she calls the “explicit function claims”, arguing that not only are function-based accounts of argumentation insufficiently motivated, but they fail to ground claims to normativity. In this paper I stake out the beginnings of a functionalist answer to Goodwin.

In this article we explore an argumentative pattern that provides a normative justification for expected utility functions grounded on empirical evidence, showing how it worked in three different episodes of their development. The argument claims that we should prudentially maximize our expected utility since this is the criterion effectively applied by those who are considered wisest in making risky choices (be it gamblers or businessmen). Yet, to justify the adoption of this rule, it should be proven that this is (...) empirically true: i.e. that a given function allows us to predict the choices of that particular class of agents. We show how expected utility functions were introduced and contested in accordance with this pattern in the 18th century and how it recurred in the 1950s when Allais made his case against the neo-Bernoullians. (shrink)

Are proper functions normative? In this paper, I try to answer this question. Acknowledging that the notion of normativity is too ill-defined to afford a categorical yes/no answer, I proceed by attempting to identify arguments for an affirmative answer and trying to articulate what conception of normativity they rely on: what "normativity" has to be, in order for these arguments to work. I identify three arguments for the conclusion that proper functions are *bearer* normative, i.e., normative for (...) the things that have the functions in question. I then propose that two of the arguments may be generalized to the *agentive* case, in defense of the conclusion that proper functions are also, at least in some cases, normative for agents. (shrink)

This paper discusses whether rationality, morality or prudence impose process-requirements upon us. It has been argued that process-requirements fulfil two essential functions within a system of rational, moral or prudential requirements. These functions are considered to prove the existence of process-requirements. First, process-requirements are deemed necessary to ensure that rationality, morality or prudence can guide our deliberations and actions. Second, their existence is regarded as essential for the correctness of our ordinary explanations of why a person possesses a certain degree (...) of morality, rationality or prudence. However, I argue that these two functions are unable to show the existence of process-requirements. Instead, I propose a different essential function for process-requirements: they are necessary for attributing the correct degree of rationality, morality or prudence to a subject who is not entirely rational, moral or prudent. This function, I argue, necessitates the existence of process-requirements. (shrink)

Some philosophers have argued that truth is a norm of judgement and have provided a variety of formulations of this general thesis. In this paper, I shall side with these philosophers and assume that truth is a norm of judgement. What I am primarily interested in here are two core questions concerning the judgement-truth norm: (i) what are the normative relationships between truth and judgement? And (ii) do these relationships vary or are they constant? I argue for a pluralist (...) picture—what I call Normative Alethic Pluralism (NAP)—according to which (i) there is more than one correct judgement-truth norm and (ii) the normative relationships between truth and judgement vary in relation to the subject matter of the judgement. By means of a comparative analysis of disagreement in three areas of the evaluative domain—refined aesthetics, basic taste and morality—I show that there is an important variability in the normative significance of disagreement—I call this the variability conjecture. By presenting a variation of Lynch’s scope problem for alethic monism, I argue that a monistic approach to the normative function of truth is unable to vindicate the conjecture. I then argue that normative alethic pluralism provides us with a promising model to account for it. (shrink)

This study develops a unified account of teleology, rationality, and moral normativity grounded in the structural organization of the world and the mind’s absorption of it. Rather than treating nature as normatively inert, the paper argues that biological, cognitive, and social systems exhibit real functional asymmetries—organized patterns that can succeed or fail relative to the stabilizing roles they perform. These asymmetries generate objective gradients of benefit and harm. Rational cognition does not project normativity onto the world; it internalizes these gradients (...) through sustained exposure to patterns of function, malfunction, and restoration. The phenomenology of absurdity—dissonance in the face of structured yet purposeless activity—reveals this absorptive shaping of reason. On this basis, the study dissolves the traditional is–ought gap. In a world structured by directedness, normativity is the practical recognition of what sustains or degrades functional organization. Moral teleology is simply functional teleology applied to persons: patterns of stability, breakdown, benefit, and harm within the systems that constitute agency and community. The resulting ethics is consequence-sensitive but non-maximizing, modeled on restoration rather than aggregate utility, and resonates with Taymiyyan consequentialism, where good consists in re-aligning action with the functional goods embedded in creation. The paper concludes by addressing evolutionary and agency-based objections, showing that they either undermine themselves or rely on the very teleological structure they deny. Teleological realism thus emerges not as speculative metaphysics but as the only framework that explains rational cognition, normative experience, and the organized character of the world. (shrink)

Teleosemantics has a problem: it holds that to have a mind one must have a history, often a long evolutionary history. The solution to the problem is for teleosemanticists to give up on natural selection as the source of natural norms (functions) for neural structures, and to find a different source of natural norms which is not essentially history-involving. Such a source in fact exists, in cybernetic governance. This paper argues for the existence of natural norms derived from cybernetic governance, (...) parallel to natural norms derived from natural selection but distinct from them, and shows how such norms could save teleosemantics from its over-emphasis on history. (shrink)

Constitutivists seek to locate the metaphysical foundations of ethics in nonnormative facts about what is constitutive of agency. For most constitutivists, this involves grounding authoritative norms in the teleological structure of agency. Despite a recent surge in interest, the philosophical move at the heart of this sort of constitutivism remains underdeveloped. Some constitutivists—Foot, Thomson, and Korsgaard (at least in her recent *Self-Constitution*)—adopt a broadly Aristotelian approach. They claim that the functional nature of agency grounds normative judgments about agents in (...) much the same way that the functional natures of artifacts and bodily organs ground normative judgments about those kinds of things. I argue that the neo-Aristotelian conclusions about goodness which follow so straightforwardly from teleological premises are not genuinely normative. Functions are not by their very nature normatively significant. Other constitutivists—notably J. David Velleman and Paul Katsafanas—eschew Aristotelian talk of functions in favor of an approach based on the idea that agency has a constitutive aim. Velleman and Katsafanas both claim that aims are normatively significant. I argue that the fact that agency has a constitutive aim is merely a fact about the motives that produce and regulate actions. And so we are still left with a gap between the teleological and the normative. I conclude by suggesting that constitutivists have failed to find a way to bridge this gap not because none exists, but rather because they have been looking in the wrong place. The constitutivist project can be salvaged, but only if it is supplemented with a reductive metanormative account of reasons for action, an account that links reasons to sound or successful practical reasoning. (shrink)

The term ‘functionalism’ is usually heard in connection with the philosophy of mind or cognition. The functionalism of Wilfrid Sellars, however, is in the first instance as response to the worries about the metaphysics not of mental states, but of meaning. Only late in his career did Sellars explore the possibility of extending his functionalism into an account of cognition. It has been suggested, though, that Sellars’ extension of his functionalist theory into subpersonal territory is not successful. In particular, there (...) is a worry abroad that in order to be a functionalist about cognitive states, Sellars must succumb to a special form of the Myth of the Given. In this essay I will review and elucidate what I take to be the structure of Sellars’ functionalism, defending it from this worry. I will suggest a resolution of some apparent textual contradictions based in part on the chronology of Sellars’ writing, with the assumption that later writings express Sellars’ more nuanced views. Draft of 2009. (shrink)

The notion of malfunction is critical to biological explanation. It provides a test-bed for the normative character of functional attribution. Theories of biological functioning must permit traits to operate but, at the same time, be judged as malfunctioning (in some naturalized, non-arbitrary sense). Whereas malfunctioning has attracted most attention and discussion in evolutionary etiological approaches, systemic and organizational ones have been less discussed. The most influential of the organizational approaches (by Saborido, Moreno and Mossio) takes a dual-order approach to (...) malfunctions, as a set of functions that fit first-order constitutive norms but fail to obey second-order regulatory ones. We argue that this conception is unnecessarily complicated (malfunctions do not need to arise as a result of two conflicting orders of norms) and too narrow (it excludes canonical cases of malfunctioning). We provide an alternative organizational account grounded on viability theory. The dynamics of the traits that constitute an organism define the normative field of its viability space: sugar must be replaced at certain rate, blood must be pumped at a certain pace, etc. A trait operates normatively when its effects on the viability space correlate positively with the normative field. Three senses of dysfunctionality might be distinguished: subfunctional operations are those that positively correlate with the normative field but quantitatively fail to match the required speed; malfunctional operations are those that do not positively correlate with the normative field; and, nonfunctional traits either don’t operate at all or operate with null effect on the normative field. (shrink)

Why is there a norm of reciprocity in certain societies – the recipient of a gift should give a gift in return? Or what is its function? Sir James Frazer provides an unobvious answer to the function of such a norm in one society: it serves to establish who is alive.

In this paper, I argue that what counts as the proper function of a trait is a matter of the de facto perspective that the biological system, itself, possesses on what counts as proper functioning for that trait. Unlike non-perspectival accounts, internal perspectivalism does not succumb to generality problems. But unlike external perspectivalism, internal perspectivalism can provide a fully naturalistic, mind-independent grounding of proper function and natural norms. The attribution of perspectives to biological systems is intended to be (...) neither metaphorical nor anthropomorphic: I do not mean to imply that such systems thereby must possess agency, cognition, intentions, concepts, or mental or psychological states. Instead, such systems provide the grounding for norms of performance when they internally enforce their own standard of (i.e., their own perspective on) what constitutes proper functioning or malfunctioning. By operating with a fixed, determinate level of generality, such systems provide the basis for an account of proper function that is immune to generality problems. (shrink)

What is the relation between norms (in the sense of ?socially accepted rules?) and conventions? A number of philosophers have suggested that there is some kind of conceptual or constitutive relation between them. Some hold that conventions are or entail special kinds of norms (the ?conventions-as-norms thesis?). Others hold that at least some norms are or entail special kinds of conventions (the ?norms-as-conventions thesis?). We argue that both theses are false. Norms and conventions are crucially different conceptually and functionally in (...) ways that make it the case that it is a serious mistake to try to assimilate them. They are crucially different conceptually in that whereas conventions are not normative and are behaviour dependent and desire dependent, norms are normative, behaviour independent, and desire independent. They are crucially different functionally in that whereas conventions principally serve the function of facilitating coordination, norms principally serve the function of making us accountable to one another. (shrink)

What is the connection between reasons and motives? According to Reasons Internalism there is a non-trivial conceptual connection between normative reasons and the possibility of rationally accessing relevant motivation. Reasons Internalism is attractive insofar as it captures the thought that reasons are for reasoning with and repulsive insofar as it fails to generate sufficient critical distance between reasons and motives. Rather than directly adjudicate this dispute, I extract from it two generally accepted desiderata on theories of normative reasons (...) and argue that a new theory can satisfy both. The new theory locates part of the meaning of normative reason statements in their role in normative discussion. It generates a view of the connection between reasons and motives that is distinct from Reasons Internalism, yet distinctively in its spirit. (shrink)

What kind of norms are epistemic norms? Constitutive, prudential, functional, moral? Is epistemic normativity normativity sui generis or does epistemic normativity reduce to some other kind of normativity? This chapter argues that some epistemic norms—norms with epistemic content—are social norms—norms in the sense of prescribed regularities in behavior. This is not to reduce epistemic normativity to social normativity, but to understand how some epistemic norms might also be social norms. Social norms are ubiquitous in human life. Many social norms are (...) pro-social, prescribing socially helpful cooperative behavior. The epistemic norms isolated are norms associated with truth-telling. These epistemic norms are then prescriptions for socially helpful behavior, for we benefit by learning from others. There should be such pro-social norms for humans who have undergone group selection for helpful pro-social social norms. We should expect such norms to emerge and to persist. (shrink)

Traditional normative theories of belief in epistemology presume that belief-forming includes a reflective component and a mental agency component. Beliefs are regarded as conscious doxastic attitudes with propositional contents. Let’s call this view the Transcendental View about Belief (TVB). First, I argue that reputed norms of belief as the truth norm, the knowledge norm and the rationality norm all incorporate TVB. Further, I argue that the empirical evidence concerning belief-forming collected in the last two decades by Rüdiger Seitz, Hans-Ferdinant (...) Angel, Raymond Paloutzian and their colleagues suggests that primal beliefs do not correspond to the description provided by TVB. Primal beliefs are byproducts of perceptive and affective type 1 processing. As such, they are non-propositional multilayer relational states of a cognitive system S that do not presuppose conscious awareness. Thus, I maintain that TVB is normatively inadequate, because it is descriptively false. I presume that a good normative account of beliefs should be able to accommodate primal beliefs and provide a norm of primal belief. I conclude by attempting to outline such a positive account. (shrink)

This paper argues that God plausibly has facts of self that function as modifiers of the normative reasons that apply to him. Facts of self are subjective facts like the fact that one has certain commitments, the fact that one has a certain character, the fact that one has a certain practical identity, the fact that one has certain projects. There is a widespread intuition (the normative significance of self) that facts of self influence what an agent’s (...) sufficient reasons are. While this intuition is widespread in ethics, its implications for God’s practical life have received little scholarly attention. Facts of God’s self have, however, received some attention in the context of what I call the divine mechanism complaint, but their normative roles have been undertheorized. The divine mechanism complaint is that on certain conceptions of God’s relation to reasons, God is objectionably mechanical. I take this complaint as requiring that God have some influence on what his sufficient reasons are. An adequate account of the normative significance of God’s self, then, can answer the divine mechanism complaint, providing us with a plausible picture of God’s practical life. I provide such an account, arguing that God need not be objectionably mechanical if his facts of self function as modifiers of his normative reasons. (shrink)

In this dissertation, I explore whether teleological, normative, and functional theories of belief each have the resources to answer three central questions about the nature and normativity of belief. These questions are: (i) what are beliefs, (ii), why do we have them, and (iii) how should we interpret doxastic correctness--the principle that it is correct to believe that p if and only if p? I argue that teleological and normative theories fail to adequately address these questions, and I (...) develop and defend a functional alternative. In addition, I attempt to extend my functional theory of belief to account for another, related attitude: suspended belief. (shrink)

In recent years, so-called organizational accounts (OA) have emerged in theoretical biology as a powerful, viable strategy for naturalizing teleology and normativity. In the wake of the theoretical tradition of autopoiesis and biological autonomy, OA notably propose a new meaning for the notion of “organization,” which they claim to be capable, among other things, of grounding objective and observer-independent normative teleological ascriptions. In this paper, I focus on this last claim, asking “How are ‘organization’ and ‘normativity’ conceptually connected?” The (...) basic insight mobilized by the OA framework to answer this question is most often expressed as a counterfactual argument regarding the “conditions of existence” of organized entities. In this paper, I show that careful scrutiny of this core OA argument reveals a substantial shortcoming. To make this point, I first analyze how the OA framework positions the idea of “conditions of existence” via the notions of “dependence”, “constraint,” and “closure.” Second, I consider various possible interpretations of the OA counterfactual argument grounding norms. I conclude that the implications of this argument do not enable OA to deliver what they promise, i.e., a straightforward link between organization and norms. I argue that a different strategy is needed to capture the basic organizational intuition about biological normativitiy and suggest that a stipulative route might be better suitable to that end. (shrink)

It is generally accepted that there are two kinds of normative concepts : evaluative concepts, such as good, and deontic concepts, such as ought. The question that is raised by this distinction is how it is possible to claim that evaluative concepts are normative. Given that deontic concepts appear to be at the heart of normativity, the bigger the gap between evaluative and deontic concepts, the less it appears plausible to say that evaluative concepts are normative. After (...) having presented the main differences between evaluative and deontic concepts, and shown that there is more than a superficial difference between the two kinds, the paper turns to the question of the normativity of evaluative concepts. It will become clear that, even if these concepts have different functions, there are a great many ties between evaluative concepts, on the one hand, and the concepts of ought and of reason, on the other. (shrink)

Normativity as a Feature of Reality argues that normativity is not a moral construct but a structural property of systems that must maintain coherence across time. The paper reframes right and wrong as the system’s internal signals of alignment and misalignment, rather than as rules, virtues, or cultural prescriptions. It develops a model in which tension, relief, integrity, and fragmentation are understood as structural feedback, not psychological states or moral judgments. The work distinguishes structural normativity from moralism, showing that instruction (...) can transmit rules but cannot generate the felt sense of coherence that makes agency possible. It outlines how the orientation system develops, how self‑correction functions, and why responsibility emerges from responsiveness to structural signals rather than obedience to external norms. The result is a non‑moralistic account of normative life grounded in architecture rather than authority: systems persist by maintaining compatible relations among their parts, and normativity is the human‑scale expression of this requirement. (shrink)

Normative notions are central to Husserl’s account of intentionality: intending an object is a normative achievement, essentially admitting of fulfillment or disappointment. So is teleology: intentional conscious life is inseparable from a horizontal orientation toward “ideas in the Kantian sense.” How are they related? Is teleology essential for intentionality as a normative achievement? Or, in Husserl’s way of putting it, do relative truths “demand” ideal truths? This article explores some reasons for agreeing with Husserl that this is (...) indeed the case. In Sec. 2, I will identify a “normative turn” in Husserl’s account of the basic structure of perceptual intentionality and spell out the teleological character of this normative account. This sense of teleology is a minimal one. A more robust teleology, in the sense of an orientation toward infinite ideality, is then justified in Sec. 3 by virtue of its function in the constitution of genuine objectivity. In Sec. 4, I will turn to the noetic, especially the ego-oriented side of Husserl’s analysis, in order to clarify the normative force of infinite telos. All in all, I will argue that the normative and the teleological sides of the story are inextricably intertwined in Husserl’s account of intentional conscious life. (shrink)

This chapter develops an account of the meaning and use of various types of legal claims, and uses this account to inform debates about the nature and normativity of law. The account draws on a general framework for implementing a contextualist theory, called 'Discourse Contextualism' (Silk 2016). The aim of Discourse Contextualism is to derive the apparent normativity of claims of law from a particular contextualist interpretation of a standard semantics for modals, along with general principles of interpretation and conversation. (...) Though the semantics is descriptivist, it avoids Dworkin’s influential criticism of so-called “semantic theories of law,” and elucidates the nature of “theoretical disagreements” about the criteria of legal validity. The account sheds light on the social, interpersonal function of normative uses of language in legal discourse. It also gives precise expression to Hart’s and Raz’s intuitive distinctions among types of legal claims (internal/external, committed/detached), while giving them a uniform type of analysis. The proposed semantics and pragmatics of legal claims provides a fruitful framework for further theorizing about the nature and metaphysics of law, the relation between law and morality, and the apparent practical character of legal language and judgment. Discourse Contextualism provides a solid linguistic basis for a broader account of legal discourse and practice. (shrink)

This paper challenges the conventional wisdom dominating the social sciences and philosophy regarding temporal discounting, the practice of discounting the value of future utility when making decisions. Although there are sharp disagreements about temporal discounting, a kind of standard model has arisen, one that begins with a normative standard about how we should make intertemporal comparisons of utility. This standard demands that in so far as one is rational one discounts utilities at future times with an exponential discount (...) class='Hi'>function. Tracing the justification for this standard through economics, philosophy and psychology, I’ll make what I believe is the best case one can for it, showing how a non-arbitrariness assumption and a dominance argument together imply that discounting ought to be exponential. Ultimately, however, I don’t find the case compelling. Non-exponential temporal discounting is often rational. If this is correct, Instead of trying to ‘fix’ non-exponential discounting because it is irrational and associated with negative life outcomes, we might instead focus attention on why the conditions obtain that make such discounting rational. (shrink)

This thesis engages with three topics and the relationships between them: (i) the phenomenon of disagreement (paradigmatically, where one person makes a claim and another denies it); (ii) the normative character of disagreements (the issue of whether, and in what sense, one of the parties is “at fault” for believing something that’s untrue); (iii) the issue of which theory of what truth is can best accommodate the norms relating belief and truth. People disagree about all sorts of things: about (...) whether climate is changing, death penalty is wrong, sushi is delicious, or Louis C.K. is funny. However, even focusing on disagreements in the evaluative domain (e.g., taste, moral and comedic), where people have the intuition that there is ‘no fact of the matter’ about who is right, there are significant differences that require explanation. For instance, disagreement about taste is generally perceived as shallow. People accept to disagree and live comfortably with that fact. By contrast, moral disagreement is perceived as deep and sometimes hard to tolerate. Comedic disagreement is similar to taste. However, it may involve an element of ‘intellectual snobbery’ that is absent in taste disagreement. The immediate questions are whether these contrasts allow of precise characterization and what is responsible for them. I argue that, once a case is made for the truth-aptness of judgments in these areas, the contrast can be explained in terms of variable normative function of truth – as exerting a lightweight normative constraint in the domain of taste and a stricter constraint in the moral domain. In particular I claim that while truth in the moral domain exerts a sui generis deontic control, this normative feature of truth is silent in both the taste and the comedic domains. This leads me to investigate how to conceive of truth in the light of normative variability. I argue that an amended version of deflationism – minimally inflated deflationism – can account for the normative variability of truth. (shrink)

I show that intelligible possibility requires constitutive norms — constraints that define a symmetry-compatible base measure and enforce bounded expectations. Under the Maximum Entropy principle, these norms uniquely select exponential-family laws. On multiplicative domains, scale invariance identifies the logarithm as the canonical information measure and produces Pareto-distributed tails that account for the observed 80:20 regularity. Renormalization stability isolates the Gaussian and power-law families as fixed points under transformation. A branching-process axiom system models gift-chain dynamics, allowing direct computation of survival and (...) control from the associated probability-generating function. A projection theorem in Kullback-Leibler divergence formalizes the infinite–finite boundary as a positive information distance, under finite norm sets. Explanations are provided after formal claims. The Norms-First framework and vocabulary follow the V3 preprint (Wells, Nathaniel. A Quantum Ontology of Logos) to ensure alignment and citability. (shrink)

Recent advances in artificial intelligence and artificial life research have renewed claims that sufficiently complex artificial systems may count as living. Such claims typically rely on functional, informational, or autonomy-based criteria, while remaining largely silent on the role of normativity in distinguishing living systems from non-living ones. This paper argues that these accounts conflate norm-sensitive behavior with intrinsic normativity. Drawing on a relational account of life grounded in organism–environment coupling, I distinguish between derivative normativity, in which standards of success and (...) failure are externally specified, and intrinsic normativity, in which such standards arise from a system’s own organizational dependence on environmental conditions. I propose that a system exhibits intrinsic normativity if and only if breakdown undermines its continued existence as an organized system, rather than merely its conformity to externally defined evaluative criteria. On this basis, I argue that contemporary artificial systems including highly adaptive, self-modifying, and open-ended systems instantiate only derivative normativity. While such systems may model or simulate aspects of living normativity, they do not generate the intrinsic norms characteristic of life. This account does not presuppose a biological substrate and therefore does not exclude non-biological life in principle. Instead, it provides a principled criterion for distinguishing between the simulation and instantiation of life, clarifying the conceptual limits of artificial life research without appealing to consciousness, intention, or moral value. (shrink)

In the text it will be attempted to prove the existence of a tradition of expressivism in the form of normative social functionalism as the common denominator for the position or positions taken by the later Wittgenstein and Wilfrid Sellars in regards to questions of objectivity and normativity of lingustic meaning, presented as answers to the problem of rule following. Sellars formulates the problem of rule following at approximately the same time as does Wittgenstein. Also, Sellars’ answer to this (...) problem, as does Wittgenstein’s will call upon meaning as determined by the practices of use of lingustic expressions. It is claimed that the tradition that clusters the authors culminates in inferential pragmatism of Robert Brandom. Apart from the above, the paper also discusses the differences between the positions of the said authors, the most prominent of which is manifested in the different consequences of their contrary metaphilosophical attitudes. (shrink)

Four global concerns dominate contemporary discourse: climate instability, persistent armed conflict, the commodification of health and bodily vulnerability, and the widespread misrepresentation of religious traditions—especially Islam. These are typically analyzed separately. This paper proposes that they are better understood as interconnected expressions of a deeper structural issue within modern normative frameworks. Drawing on the Dual‑Closure Framework, it argues that the systematic exclusion of non‑contingent grounding for truth, obligation, and value leaves normative orders vulnerable to fragmentation, domination by power, (...) and the reduction of persons to functional units. Each crisis is examined through this lens, revealing a shared structural logic. The paper concludes that addressing these crises may require not only institutional reform but a reconsideration of the foundations of normativity itself—a conclusion that extends to related debates such as the attempt to equate artificial intelligence with human personhood. (shrink)

The aim of this study is to justify the belief that there are biological normative mechanisms that fulfill non-trivial causal roles in the explanations (as formulated by researchers) of actions and behaviors present in specific systems. One example of such mechanisms is the predictive mechanisms described and explained by predictive processing (hereinafter PP), which (1) guide actions and (2) shape causal transitions between states that have specific content and fulfillment conditions (e.g. mental states). Therefore, I am guided by a (...) specific theoretical goal associated with the need to indicate those conditions that should be met by the non-trivial theory of normative mechanisms and the specific models proposed by PP supporters. In this work, I use classical philosophical methods, such as conceptual analysis and critical reflection. I also analyze selected studies in the field of cognitive science, cognitive psychology, neurology, information theory and biology in terms of the methodology, argumentation and language used, in accordance with their theoretical importance for the issues discussed in this study. In this sense, the research presented here is interdisciplinary. My research framework is informed by the mechanistic model of explanation, which defines the necessary and sufficient conditions for explaining a given phenomenon. The research methods I chose are therefore related to the problems that I intend to solve. In the introductory chapter, “The concept of predictive processing”, I discuss the nature of PP as well as its main assumptions and theses. I also highlight the key concepts and distinctions for this research framework. Many authors argue that PP is a contemporary version of Kantianism and is exposed to objections similar to those made against the approach of Immanuel Kant. I discuss this thesis and show that it is only in a very general sense that the PP framework is neo-Kantian. Here we are not dealing with transcendental deduction nor with the application of transcendental arguments. I argue that PP is based on reverse engineering and abduction inferences. In the second part of this chapter, I respond to the objection formulated by Dan Zahavi, who directly accuses this research framework of anti-realistic consequences. I demonstrate that the position of internalism, present in the so-called conservative PP, does not imply anti-realism, and that, due to the explanatory role played in it by structural representations directed at real patterns, it is justified to claim that PP is realistic. In this way, I show that PP is a non-trivial research framework, having its subject, specific methods and its own epistemic status. Finally, I discuss positions classified as the socalled radical PP. In the chapter “Predictive processing as a Bayesian explanatory model” I justify the thesis according to which PP offers Bayesian modeling. Many researchers claim that the brain is an implemented statistical probabilistic network that is an approximation of the Bayesian 7 rule. In practice, this means that all cognitive processes are to apply Bayes' rule and can be described in terms of probability distributions. Such a solution arouses objections among many researchers and is the subject of wide criticism. The purpose of this chapter is to justify the thesis that Bayesian PP is a non-trivial research framework. For this purpose, I argue that it explains certain phenomena not only at the computational level described by David Marr, but also at the level of algorithms and implementation. Later in this chapter I demonstrate that PP is normative modeling. Proponents of the use of Bayesian models in psychology or decision theory argue that they are normative because they allow the formulation of formal rules of action that show what needs to be done to make a given action optimal. Critics of this approach emphasize that such thinking about the normativity of Bayesian modeling is unjustified and that science should shift from prescriptive to descriptive positions. In a polemic with Shira Elqayam and Jonathan Evans (2011), I show that the division they propose into prescriptivism and Bayesian descriptivism is apparent, because, as I argue, there are two forms of prescriptivism, i.e. the weak and the strong. I argue that the weak version is epistemic and can lead to anti-realism, while the strong version is ontic and allows one to justify realism in relation to Bayesian models. I argue that a weak version of prescriptivism is valid for PP. It allows us to adopt anti-realism in relation to PP. In practice, this means that you can explain phenomena using Bayes' rule. This does not, however, imply that they are Bayesian in nature. However, the full justification of realism in relation to the Bayesian PP presupposes the adoption of strong prescriptivism. This position assumes that phenomena are explained by Bayesian rule because they are Bayesian as such. If they are Bayesian in nature, then they should be explained using Bayesian modeling. This thesis will be substantiated in the chapters “Normative functions and mechanisms in the context of predictive processing” and “Normative mechanisms and actions in predictive processing”. In the chapter “The Free Energy Principle in predictive processing”, I discuss the Free Energy Principle (hereinafter FEP) formulated by Karl Friston and some of its implications. According to this principle, all biological systems (defined in terms of Markov blankets) minimize the free energy of their internal states in order to maintain homeostasis. Some researchers believe that PP is a special case of applying this principle to cognition, and that predictive mechanisms are homeostatic mechanisms that minimize free energy. The discussion of FEP is important due to the fact that some authors consider it to be important for explanatory purposes and normative. If this is the case, then FEP turns out to be crucial in explaining normative predictive mechanisms and, in general, any normative biological mechanisms. To define the explanatory possibilities of this principle, I refer to the discussion of its supporters on the issue they define as the problem of continuity and discontinuity between life and mind. A critical analysis of this discussion and the additional arguments I have formulated have allowed me to revise the explanatory ambitions of FEP. I also reject the belief that this principle is necessary to explain the nature of predictive mechanisms. I argue that the principle formulated and defended by Friston is an important research heuristic for PP analysis. 8 In the chapter “Normative functions and mechanisms in predictive processing”, I start my analyzes by formulating an answer to the question about the normative nature of homeostatic mechanisms. I demonstrate that predictive mechanisms are not homeostatic. I defend the view that a full explanation of normative mechanisms presupposes an explanation of normative functions. I discuss the most important proposals for understanding the normativity of a function, both from a systemic and teleosemantic perspective. I conclude that the non-trivial concept of a function must meet two requirements which I define as explanatory and normative. I show that none of the theories I have invoked satisfactorily meets both of these requirements. Instead, I propose a model of normativity based on Bickhard's account, but supplemented by a mechanistic perspective. I argue that a function is normative when: (1) it allows one to explain the dysfunction of a given mechanism; (2) it contributes to the maintenance of the organism's stability by shaping and limiting possible relations, processes and behaviors of a given system; and when (3) (according to the representational and predictive functions) it enables explaining the attribution of logical values of certain representations / predictions. In such an approach, a mechanism is normative when it performs certain normative functions and when it is constitutive for a specific action or behavior, despite the fact that for some reason it cannot realize it either currently or in the long-term. Such an understanding of the normativity of mechanisms presupposes the acceptance of the epistemic hypothesis. I argue that this hypothesis is not cognitively satisfactory, and therefore the ontic hypothesis should be justified, which is directly related to adopting the position of ontic prescriptivism. For this reason, referring to the mechanistic theory of scientific explanations, I formulate an ontical interpretation of the concept of a normative mechanism. According to this approach, a mechanism or a function is normative when they perform such and such causal roles in explaining certain actions and behaviors. With regard to the normative properties of predictive mechanisms and functions, this means that they are the causes of specific actions an organism carries out in the environment. In this way, I justify the necessity of accepting the ontic hypothesis and rejecting the epistemic hypothesis. The fifth chapter, “Normative mechanisms and actions in predictive processing”, is devoted to the dark room problem and the related exploration-exploitation trade-off. A dark room is the state that an agent could be in if it minimized the sum of all potential prediction errors. I demonstrate that, in accordance with the basic assumption of PP about the need for continuous and long-term minimization of prediction errors, such a state should be desirable for the agent. Is it really so? Many authors believe it is not. I argue that the test of the value of PP is the possibility of a non-trivial solution of this problem, which can be reduced to the choice between active and uncertainty-increasing exploration and safe and easily predictable exploitation. I show that the solution proposed by PP supporters present in the literature does not enable a fully satisfactory explanation of this dilemma. Then I defend the position according to which the full explanation of the normative mechanisms, and, subsequently, the solution to the dilemma of exploration and exploitation, involves reference to the existence of constraints present in the environment. The constraints 9 include elements of the environment that make a given mechanism not only causal but also normative. They are therefore key to explaining the predictive mechanisms. They do not only play the role of the context in which the mechanism is implemented, but, above all, are its constitutive component. I argue that the full explanation of the role of constraints in normative predictive mechanisms presupposes the integration of individual models of specific cognitive phenomena, because only the mechanistic integration of PP with other models allows for a non-trivial explanation of the nature of normative predictive mechanisms that would have a strong explanatory value. The explanatory monism present in many approaches to PP makes it impossible to solve the problem of the dark room. Later in this chapter, I argue that the Bayesian PP is normative not because it enables the formulation of such and such rules of action, but because the predictive mechanisms themselves are normative. They are normative because they condition the choice of such and such actions by agents. In this way, I justify the hypothesis that normative mechanisms make it possible to explain the phenomenon of agent motivation, which is crucial for solving the dark room problem. In the last part of the chapter, I formulate the hypothesis of distributed normativity, which assumes that the normative nature of certain mechanisms, functions or objects is determined by the relations into which these mechanisms, functions or objects enter. This means that what is normative (in the primary sense) is the relational structure that constitutes the normativity of specific items included in it. I suggest that this hypothesis opens up many areas of research and makes it possible to rethink many problems. In the “Conclusion”, I summarize the results of my research and indicate further research perspectives. (shrink)

How or in virtue of what does any one particular action differ from another? Available views on the issue of action individuation tend to emphasize the descriptive features of actions, such as where and when they occur, or what they cause or are caused by. I contend instead that actions are individuated by their normative features, such as what licenses them and what they license in turn. In this essay, deploying a suggestion from Sellars and Brandom, I argue specifically (...) that actions are individuated by their normative function or role. (shrink)

The concept of sovereignty is often confined to power-centric, state-bound aspects of politics, leaving its normative dimension under-theorised. This article argues that sovereignty cannot be treated as a normatively inert notion, nor reduced to the nation-state. It offers a revised, historically grounded account of sovereignty as containing an abstract normative ideal of political authority oriented toward the common good and irreducible to empirical claims, national borders, or fixed institutional forms. The article conceptualises sovereignty’s normative dimension through the (...) notion of the “normative loop,” which captures the interconnection among sovereign power, the public realm, and the common good. It then elaborates four desiderata that an account of the common good must satisfy to function within this framework. Finally, the article explores the framework’s implications for political legitimacy and autonomy. The upshot is that the value of external autonomy hinges on internal legitimacy, which in turn is grounded in a fiduciary duty to the common good. This provides an alternative to both sovereigntist nostalgia and realist, power-centric, state-bound accounts of sovereignty. (shrink)

Gabriel Zucman presents his proposal for a global minimum tax on billionaires as one that citizens must debate. They have to weigh the benefits and costs and ultimately decide whether to adopt it. In this article, we aim to contribute to this debate by discussing relevant insights from economic ethics and political philosophy. Our main claim is that the normative case for Zucman’s proposal is very strong because it is overdetermined: there are multiple reasons that are, if each is (...) taken individually, sufficient to justify the proposal. Such a global minimum tax would help address unmet urgent needs, promote social cohesion and relational equality, contribute to climate fairness and ecological transitions, and improve the functioning of democracies. It would also bring the tax system closer in line with the ability-to-pay principle and help reduce undeserved wealth inequality. All these normative considerations combined show that citizens have good reasons to adopt the proposal. If anything, these considerations imply that citizens should, ultimately, aim for an ambitious variant of the proposal. (shrink)

Indefinite singular (IS) noun phrases are a familiar but under-theorized feature of moral discourse (such as in "A virtuous person prioritizes self-improvement"). While widely used in definitions and generalizations about character, their semantic and normative significance has gone largely unexamined. This paper argues that IS moral generalizations serve a dual function in moral thought: a definitional role in articulating principles (e.g., "An act is right iff it maximizes happiness") and a metalinguistic role in negotiating moral concepts (e.g., "A (...) good person is generous"). We propose that many IS moral generalizations operate not merely as descriptive statements, but as normative proposals that shape how moral terms should be used. We distinguish these uses from standard characterizing generalizations and show that IS constructions allow for moral concepts---such as virtue, goodness, and rightness---to be dynamically defined, contested, and taught. This reveals a novel perspective on how language contributes to the evolution and application of moral norms. (shrink)

This paper develops an epistemically grounded argument concerning the con- ditions of normative assessment under interpersonal mediation. Its starting point is the observation that normative assessments involving multiple perspectives are subject to structural epistemic conditions that systematically limit their reach and justiability. In four steps it is shown: that interpersonal judgment under epistemic distance becomes recursive and grows in underdetermination; that structural asymmetry and scaling disproportionately worsen the conditions of interpersonal justiability; that from these conditions a content-neutral dimension (...) of normative quality can be de- rived, functioning as a condition of moral judgment; and that this condition places on institutions a constitutive obligation toward constructive self-dissolution. The argument introduces no external values. Its normative content arises per- formatively  in the very act of engaging with it as an argument. A closing remark sketches the transferability of the argumentative structure to further elds of inter- personally mediated inquiry. This is the Translation of the German original "Normative Qualität als Bedingung moralischer Beurteilung". (shrink)

Philosophers pursue a number of different explanatory projects when explaining various sorts of normative phenomena. For example, they may seek to explain why the right acts are right or why the things that are good for us are so, explain what it is for something to be obligatory, or explain the source of reasons for action. This chapter takes some steps towards understanding this variety. I first lay some general ground about explanation, suggest that explanations that are appropriate in (...) normative inquiry are objective in a certain sense, and discuss the relevant notion of the normative. I describe some key axes of debate about the form and the content of explanations that first-order normative inquiry (such as normative ethics) typically seeks to state and defend, such as whether normative principles are essential to first-order normative explanation and whether first-order normative explanations work by highlighting what grounds the normative phenomena that are being explained, or by unifying them with other seemingly disparate normative phenomena, or in some other way. I then discuss the function of explanation in normative inquiry and the question of whether normative explanation might be pluralist in various senses. More briefly I discuss how two other sorts of normative explanation that seem more concerned with the foundations of normative domains like ethics and practical reason (such as the source of reasons for action) and with explicating or analyzing the natures of normative properties might be understood and how they relate to first-order normative explanations. (shrink)

Much moral skepticism stems from the charge that moral facts do not figure in causal explanations. However, philosophers committed to normative epistemological discourse (by which I mean our practice of evaluating beliefs as justified or unjustified, and so forth) are in no position to demand that normative facts serve such a role, since epistemic facts are causally impotent as well. I argue instead that pragmatic reasons can justify our continued participation in practices which, like morality and epistemology, do (...) not serve the function of causal explanation. Finally, I defend this pragmatic justification of morality and epistemology against a number of objections, including the objection that it confuses practical and theoretical justification. (shrink)

What is the distinction between what we ought to believe _simpliciter_ and what we ought to believe _epistemically speaking_, and why do we draw that distinction? I motivate this question through a series of examples, consider various existing answers, and find them wanting. Then I propose and explore an alternative based on a version of Susan Wolf's rule consequentialism transposed to the epistemic realm: the norms that determine what we ought to do epistemically speaking are those such that broad adherence (...) to them across your epistemic community would give the best results from an epistemic point of view. I argue that norms that exhort us to believe only what we ought to believe epistemically speaking follow from this Wolfian version of epistemic rule consequentialism. In a coda, I offer an alternative account of the function of knowledge ascriptions that improves on Edward Craig's. (shrink)

Legal norms are an invention. This paper advances a proposal about what kind of invention they are. The proposal is that legal norms derive from rules which specify role functions in a legal system. Legal rules attach to agents in virtue of their status within the system in which the rules operate. The point of legal rules or a legal system is to solve to large scale coordination problems, specifically the problem of organizing social and economic life among a group (...) of people and their successors, though not every legal rule pertains to a coordination problem. The framework for thinking about legal norms that I describe is a framework for thinking about institutions and policies more generally. The idea is to show that legal norms are a species of institutional norm. There are two central ideas. The first is the idea of a role in an institution. The second is the idea of proxy agency. Proxy agency involves one agent or group acting under the authorization of another agent or group (perhaps subsuming it) in a way that makes the actions of the proxy count as actions (under a description) of the individual or group for which it is a proxy. We get the characteristic structure of a legal system by conceiving of an institutional group, itself conceived of as a set of interlocking roles realized in individuals, as having one or more roles for proxy agents who are authorized by the group to make policy for the group. The set of rules governing the basic constitution of the group and spelling out the powers of the policy proxies determine fundamental norms for the group with specific role responsibilities attaching to particular positions in institutional arrangements. The policies determine further norms whose force derives from the fundamental norms. We must then say some further things to distinguish institutions and policies which we wish to designate as legal. (shrink)

This paper argues that standard approaches to the justification of coercive institutions presuppose a condition they cannot guarantee: that those subject to coercion remain normatively addressable — capable of receiving reasons as reasons rather than as conditions of survival. I distinguish instrumental coercion, which is counterfactually dispensable relative to an institution's aims, from constitutive coercion, which is a necessary structural condition of its ordinary functioning. I develop a tripartite classification of harm (catastrophic, debilitating, punitive) with explicit threshold criteria, and introduce (...) non-refusable harm as harm whose avoidance would require the agent to incur loss sufficient to destroy the conditions of deliberative agency. The central thesis — the Structural Unavailability Thesis (SUT) — holds that if an institution's ordinary compliance mechanism incorporates the standing possibility of imposing non-refusable harm, moral justification of that institution to those who bear its costs is not merely unsuccessful but structurally unavailable: absent the conditions under which justificatory discourse has application. I situate SUT within Rawlsian, Scanlonian, and Pettitian frameworks, showing it articulates a shared presupposition rather than introducing a new moral premise. I provide a granular case analysis — a routine street-stop with differential escalation — showing step-by-step how non-refusability breaks addressability. I engage the existing coercion literature (Wertheimer, Nozick, Ripstein, Tadros, Anderson) and show where SUT diverges. I address the surgery, emergency necessity, victim protection, and tragic necessity objections, examine hard cases (incarceration, conscription), and conclude with a section on implications: what follows — and what doesn't — if SUT is correct. Keywords: coercion, normative addressability, non-refusable harm, constitutive coercion, Structural Unavailability Thesis, public justification, contractualism, republicanism, policing, penal abolitionismof its ordinary functioning. (shrink)

The Knowledge Norm of Assertion claims that it is proper to assert that p only if one knows that p. Though supported by a wide range of evidence, it appears to generate incorrect verdicts when applied to utterances of “I don't know.” Instead of being an objection to KNA, I argue that this linguistic data shows that “I don't know” does not standardly function as a literal assertion about one's epistemic status; rather, it is an indirect speech act that (...) has the primary illocutionary force of opting out of the speaker's conversational responsibilities. This explanation both reveals that the opt-out is an under-appreciated type of illocutionary act with a wide range of applications, and shows that the initial data in fact supports KNA over its rivals. (shrink)

In assessing an emotional episode, we can ask whether the intentional object of the emotion is that which the subject ought to be paying attending to. If the intentional object is not that which the subject should be paying attention to, what should be the target of normative assessment? Although emotions have been accused of drawing us into inappropriate fixations, the source of such attentional misdirection remains unclear. I argue against accounts that locate attentional inappropriateness in the mere tokening (...) of thoughts that go on to elicit emotions, on the grounds that thoughts provide reasons to emote only insofar as an agent is sensitive to them. I also challenge the view that emotions can be epistemically faulty for failing to track the most important features of a situation, contending that emotions lack a salience-tracking function. Instead, drawing on Wu's account of attention as guidance in action, I argue that the normative assessment of affective attention should target the diachronic emotional sensibilities that constitute one's attunement to certain evaluative aspects over others. Norms of attention might thus call, first and foremost, for the refinement of these sensibilities. (shrink)

This paper defends the thesis that normative systemslaw, morality, and other social rulesare not the result of universal principles or transcendent ideas, but represent emergent phenomena arising from the structure, state, and dynamics of society. We show that normative systems arise as stabilization mechanisms of complex interactions among individuals, groups, and institutions, and that their validity and formal expression are contingent on specic social, economic, and technological conditions. This approach rejects the foundationalist conception of universal law or morality (...) and replaces it with a realistic framework of emergent ordering. Through historical case studies and comparative institutional analysis, we explore how diverse forms of law and morality emerge and transform in response to structural shifts in power, economy, and collective identity. For instance, we compare medieval European legal pluralism with Confucian bureaucratic ethics in imperial China to show how similar functions are fullled by distinct normative architectures. In doing so, we also examine how shifts in transportation, digitalization, and global risk governance challenge traditional normative assumptions. Finally, we distinguish between truly emergent changes arising organically from structural evolution and those ar- ticially introduced through top-down social engineering, particularly by organized minority pressure groups. (shrink)

An emerging field operating at the intersection of artificial intelligence, materials science, physical chemistry, and nanotechnology targets the creation of intelligent matter. However, despite demonstration of a range of interesting behaviours in molecular systems and soft materials, the goal of producing truly intelligent matter remains elusive. To aid the research effort, Kaspar and colleagues have elaborated a theoretical framework which purports to guide and evaluate progress towards the goal. In this paper, I address foundational conceptual issues with this intelligent matter (...) framework. In particular, I argue that the absence of a normative criterion by which to assess the behaviour of proto-intelligent material systems prevents the framework from adequately serving its guiding and evaluative functions. Without a clear specification of what kinds of behaviours count as intelligent in the first place, researchers are unlikely to develop material systems that exhibit them. I propose to augment the IMF with a normative criterion requiring that purportedly intelligent systems implement concrete behaviours which contribute towards higher-order goals in virtue of the coordinated activity of their functional elements. (shrink)

Though recent years have seen a proliferation of critical histories of international law, their normative significance remains under-theorized, especially from the perspective of general readers rather than writers of such histories. How do critical histories of international law acquire their normative significance? And how should one react to them? We distinguish three ways in which critical histories can be normatively significant: (i) by undermining the overt or covert conceptions of history embedded within present practices in support of their (...) authority; (ii) by disappointing the normative expectations that regulate people’s reactions to critical histories; and (iii) by revealing continuities and discontinuities in the functions that our practices serve. By giving us a theoretical grip on the different ways in which history can be normatively significant and call for different reactions, this account helps us think about the overall normative significance of critical histories and how one and the same critical history can pull us in different directions. (shrink)

I develop an interdisciplinary framework for understanding the nature of agents and agency that is compatible with recent developments in the metaphysics of science and that also does justice to the mechanistic and normative characteristics of agents and agency as they are understood in moral philosophy, social psychology, neuroscience, robotics, and economics. The framework I develop is internal perspectivalist. That is to say, it counts agents as real in a perspective-dependent way, but not in a way that depends on (...) an external perspective. Whether or not something counts as an agent depends on whether it is able to have a certain kind of perspective. My approach differs from many others by treating possession of a perspective as more basic than the possession of agency, representational content/vehicles, cognition, intentions, goals, concepts, or mental or psychological states; these latter capabilities require the former, not the other way around. I explain what it means for a system to be able to have a perspective at all, beginning with simple cases in biology, and show how self-contained normative perspectives about proper function and control can emerge from mechanisms with relatively simple dynamics. I then describe how increasingly complex control architectures can become organized that allow for more complex perspectives that approach agency. Next, I provide my own account of the kind of perspective that is necessary for agency itself, the goal being to provide a reference against which other accounts can be compared. Finally, I introduce a crucial distinction that is necessary for understanding human agency: that between inclinational and committal agency, and venture a hypothesis about how the normative perspective underlying committal agency might be mechanistically realized. (shrink)