Normativity Without Value: 5 Why Value Systems Are Not Meaning Systems

Throughout this series, normativity has been traced from breakdown to correctness to obligation, without appeal to representation, morality, or rules. One final clarification is now required — not as an addendum, but as a necessary structural distinction.

Value systems are not meaning systems.

They interact.

They co-evolve.

They are often linguistically entangled.

But they are not the same kind of thing.

Conflating them obscures both.

---

Two kinds of normativity

By now, we can distinguish two fundamentally different forms of normative organisation:

1. Semiotic normativity
   Constraint on meaningful continuation within a symbolic system.

2. Social–biological normativity
   Constraint on coordination, regulation, and survival within a collective system.

Both involve “oughts”.

Both involve pressure.

Both involve breakdown and repair.

But they operate over different kinds of potential.

---

Meaning systems: constraint on construal

Meaning systems are semiotic systems. Their normativity concerns:

• what counts as intelligible,

• what can be coherently construed,

• what continuations preserve symbolic viability.

A sentence breaks down when it can no longer be construed.

An argument fails when inferential continuity collapses.

A sign loses force when it no longer participates in a system of distinctions.

The pressure here is semiotic.

It is a pressure on construal itself.

Meaning is not a value.

It is a relational achievement under symbolic constraint.

---

Value systems: constraint on coordination

Value systems, by contrast, are not semiotic in their core operation.

They regulate:

• behaviour,

• interaction,

• distribution of attention, resources, and risk,

• patterns of cooperation and exclusion.

Biological regulation, social norms, institutional rules, moral codes — these are value systems. Their normativity concerns:

• what actions are sustained,

• what behaviours are rewarded or punished,

• what patterns of coordination persist.

A value system can function perfectly well without symbolic articulation at all. Many do.

Values are not meanings.

They are regulators of collective viability.

---

Why the conflation is tempting — and damaging

The conflation of meaning and value is tempting for two reasons.

First, language is often used to express values.

Second, symbolic systems are often used to stabilise value systems.

But expression is not constitution.

Stabilisation is not identity.

When value systems are treated as meaning systems, several confusions follow:

• moral disagreement is misdescribed as semantic disagreement,

• ethical pressure is mistaken for interpretive constraint,

• symbolic breakdown is moralised,

• dissent is treated as unintelligibility.

None of this is necessary — and all of it is theoretically avoidable.

---

Normativity without moralisation

One of the central achievements of this series has been to show that normativity does not require moralisation. This final distinction completes that achievement.

Meaning systems are normative because construal is constrained.

Value systems are normative because coordination is constrained.

They intersect — but neither reduces to the other.

To treat values as meanings is to mislocate obligation.

To treat meanings as values is to distort construal.

---

Ethics revisited (without collapse)

This distinction does not weaken ethics. It clarifies it.

Ethical systems operate by:

• drawing on meaning systems to articulate norms,

• deploying symbols to stabilise expectations,

• using language to negotiate obligation.

But their force does not come from meaning itself. It comes from relational pressure within collective systems — the very pressure analysed earlier in this series.

Ethics is a way of managing obligation, not the source of normativity as such.

---

The payoff of keeping the cut clean

By keeping value systems and meaning systems distinct, several gains follow:

• Meaning can be analysed without moral residue.

• Normativity can be understood without evaluative inflation.

• Ethics can be grounded without being absolutised.

• Disagreement can be navigated without pathologisation.

Most importantly, the ontology remains internally consistent.

No category does the work of another.

No pressure is misnamed.

No cut is blurred.

---

Closing the series

This series began by separating normativity from morality. It ends by separating meaning from value.

Between those two separations lies a coherent account of:

• constraint without command,

• correctness without representation,

• obligation without authority,

• ethics without metaphysical excess.

Normativity, on this view, is not an intrusion into an otherwise neutral world. It is what becomes visible whenever participation encounters constraint.

Meaning systems and value systems are two different ways that constraint becomes organised.

Confusing them is easy.

Keeping them distinct is disciplined.

And discipline, as we now understand, is not moral.

It is structural.