One of the most persistent confusions in contemporary thought is the identification of normativity with morality. The moment the word ought appears, readers often assume that an ethical framework is already in play: values, judgements, prescriptions, or social rules. This assumption is not merely mistaken; it is structurally obstructive. It prevents normativity from being understood in its most basic and pervasive form.
This series begins by severing that assumption.
Normativity is not, in the first instance, moral. It is not evaluative. It is not a judgement layered onto an otherwise neutral world. Normativity names something more primitive: constraint internal to a system of potential.
The ubiquity of non-moral “oughts”
Consider a few uncontroversial cases:
-
A sentence ought to be completed in a particular way if it is to remain grammatical.
-
A proof ought to proceed through certain steps if it is to be valid.
-
A body ought to adjust its balance if it is to remain upright.
-
A conversation ought to shift tone if it is to remain coherent.
None of these involve moral judgement. No values are being asserted. No prescriptions are imposed from outside. And yet the language of ought appears unavoidably.
What these cases share is not evaluation but constraint. Each system — linguistic, logical, corporeal, interactional — sustains a field of possible continuations. Within that field, not all continuations are equally viable. Some preserve coherence; others precipitate breakdown.
Normativity, at this level, is simply the name we give to that asymmetry.
Constraint, not command
A crucial clarification follows from this: normativity does not operate as a command. Nothing is “telling” the sentence how to continue, or the body how to rebalance. There is no authority issuing instructions. The constraint is structural, not imperative.
To say that a construal ought to take a particular form is not to legislate behaviour. It is to acknowledge that, given the system in which the construal is actualised, certain continuations are supported while others are not.
This is why normativity can be felt as pressure without being imposed as rule. The pressure arises from participation within a system of relations, not from obedience to an external standard.
Normativity without values
At this point it is tempting to smuggle values back in under a different name: to say that systems “prefer” coherence, or that breakdown is “bad”. This temptation must be resisted. Such language does explanatory damage.
Coherence is not good. Breakdown is not bad. They are simply different structural outcomes. Normativity marks the fact that systems are not indifferent to how they are continued. Some actualisations sustain the field of potential from which they emerge; others collapse it.
Values may later develop as ways of stabilising responses to these pressures. Ethical systems may later formalise those responses. But normativity itself precedes all of that. It is already at work before evaluation begins.
The ontological role of “ought”
Within a relational ontology, ought does not refer to an ideal state against which reality is measured. Nor does it point to a rule encoded in advance. Instead, it indexes the internal tensions of a system as it is actualised.
An “ought” appears wherever:
-
a system sustains multiple possible continuations,
-
those continuations are not equivalent,
-
and participation exposes the consequences of divergence.
Normativity, in this sense, is not added to meaning. It is not layered on top of ontology. It is a feature of how systems of potential operate when they are instantiated.
Clearing the ground
The task of this first post has been purely negative and preparatory: to detach normativity from morality, value, and prescription. Until this separation is made explicit, every further discussion will be distorted by ethical assumptions smuggled in at the outset.
In the next post, we will take the positive step that follows from this clarification. We will examine breakdown — not as error, failure, or deviation from representation, but as a first-order phenomenon encountered within participation itself.
It is there, in breakdown, that normativity first becomes unavoidable.
No comments:
Post a Comment