Threshold Constitutivism and Social Kinds
In “Constitutivism without Normative Thresholds,” Kathryn Lindeman raises two objections to what she aptly calls Threshold Constitutivism. My aim in this short discussion is to respond to her first objection. Although I will argue that this objection fails, I will also argue that thinking through ho...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of ethics & social philosophy 2023-09, Vol.25 (3), p.642 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 642 |
container_title | Journal of ethics & social philosophy |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Coleman, Mary Clayton |
description | In “Constitutivism without Normative Thresholds,” Kathryn Lindeman raises two objections to what she aptly calls Threshold Constitutivism. My aim in this short discussion is to respond to her first objection. Although I will argue that this objection fails, I will also argue that thinking through how to respond to it reminds us of something important, namely, that many of the Norm-Governed Kinds that are directly related to intentional action are social kinds, that is, kinds whose existence conditions we ourselves collectively write. Everyone, whether constitutivist or not, needs to think seriously about what those existence conditions should be.
[1] Journal of Ethics and Social Policy 12 (3): 231-258 (2017).
[2] Lindeman’s second objection depends on her view, which I do not share, that “Normative Constitutivism has ambitions to be an explanatory strategy for norms in general” (238, my emphasis). |
doi_str_mv | 10.26556/jesp.v25i3.1483 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A768657116</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A768657116</galeid><sourcerecordid>A768657116</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1086-61b1b0140d7e2e4585223d494c7d3555839e4c78f70ae643734d8eb538debed93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkL1PwzAUxC0EEqWwM0ZiYkjwd5yxivgSlRgos-XYL9RVEld2qMR_T9oygIRueKenuxt-CF0TXFAphLzbQNoWOyo8KwhX7ATNiBBVzrAkp7_8ObpIaYMxZxWhM3S7WkdI69C5rA5DGv34OfqdT31mBpe9BetNl734waVLdNaaLsHVz52j94f7Vf2UL18fn-vFMrcEK5lL0pAGE45dCRS4UIJS5njFbemYEEKxCiav2hIbkJyVjDsFjWDKQQOuYnN0c9z9MB1oP7RhjMb2Plm9KKWSoiRETqnin9QkB723YYDWT_8_BXws2BhSitDqbfS9iV-aYH0gqPcE9YGg3hNk366FYs0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Threshold Constitutivism and Social Kinds</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Freely Accessible Pre-print Services</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Coleman, Mary Clayton</creator><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Mary Clayton</creatorcontrib><description>In “Constitutivism without Normative Thresholds,” Kathryn Lindeman raises two objections to what she aptly calls Threshold Constitutivism. My aim in this short discussion is to respond to her first objection. Although I will argue that this objection fails, I will also argue that thinking through how to respond to it reminds us of something important, namely, that many of the Norm-Governed Kinds that are directly related to intentional action are social kinds, that is, kinds whose existence conditions we ourselves collectively write. Everyone, whether constitutivist or not, needs to think seriously about what those existence conditions should be.
[1] Journal of Ethics and Social Policy 12 (3): 231-258 (2017).
[2] Lindeman’s second objection depends on her view, which I do not share, that “Normative Constitutivism has ambitions to be an explanatory strategy for norms in general” (238, my emphasis).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1559-3061</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-3061</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.26556/jesp.v25i3.1483</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy</publisher><subject>Criticism and interpretation ; Linderman, Kathryn ; Normativity (Ethics)</subject><ispartof>Journal of ethics & social philosophy, 2023-09, Vol.25 (3), p.642</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Mary Clayton</creatorcontrib><title>Threshold Constitutivism and Social Kinds</title><title>Journal of ethics & social philosophy</title><description>In “Constitutivism without Normative Thresholds,” Kathryn Lindeman raises two objections to what she aptly calls Threshold Constitutivism. My aim in this short discussion is to respond to her first objection. Although I will argue that this objection fails, I will also argue that thinking through how to respond to it reminds us of something important, namely, that many of the Norm-Governed Kinds that are directly related to intentional action are social kinds, that is, kinds whose existence conditions we ourselves collectively write. Everyone, whether constitutivist or not, needs to think seriously about what those existence conditions should be.
[1] Journal of Ethics and Social Policy 12 (3): 231-258 (2017).
[2] Lindeman’s second objection depends on her view, which I do not share, that “Normative Constitutivism has ambitions to be an explanatory strategy for norms in general” (238, my emphasis).</description><subject>Criticism and interpretation</subject><subject>Linderman, Kathryn</subject><subject>Normativity (Ethics)</subject><issn>1559-3061</issn><issn>1559-3061</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkL1PwzAUxC0EEqWwM0ZiYkjwd5yxivgSlRgos-XYL9RVEld2qMR_T9oygIRueKenuxt-CF0TXFAphLzbQNoWOyo8KwhX7ATNiBBVzrAkp7_8ObpIaYMxZxWhM3S7WkdI69C5rA5DGv34OfqdT31mBpe9BetNl734waVLdNaaLsHVz52j94f7Vf2UL18fn-vFMrcEK5lL0pAGE45dCRS4UIJS5njFbemYEEKxCiav2hIbkJyVjDsFjWDKQQOuYnN0c9z9MB1oP7RhjMb2Plm9KKWSoiRETqnin9QkB723YYDWT_8_BXws2BhSitDqbfS9iV-aYH0gqPcE9YGg3hNk366FYs0</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Coleman, Mary Clayton</creator><general>Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ILT</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Threshold Constitutivism and Social Kinds</title><author>Coleman, Mary Clayton</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1086-61b1b0140d7e2e4585223d494c7d3555839e4c78f70ae643734d8eb538debed93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Criticism and interpretation</topic><topic>Linderman, Kathryn</topic><topic>Normativity (Ethics)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Mary Clayton</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><jtitle>Journal of ethics & social philosophy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Coleman, Mary Clayton</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Threshold Constitutivism and Social Kinds</atitle><jtitle>Journal of ethics & social philosophy</jtitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>642</spage><pages>642-</pages><issn>1559-3061</issn><eissn>1559-3061</eissn><abstract>In “Constitutivism without Normative Thresholds,” Kathryn Lindeman raises two objections to what she aptly calls Threshold Constitutivism. My aim in this short discussion is to respond to her first objection. Although I will argue that this objection fails, I will also argue that thinking through how to respond to it reminds us of something important, namely, that many of the Norm-Governed Kinds that are directly related to intentional action are social kinds, that is, kinds whose existence conditions we ourselves collectively write. Everyone, whether constitutivist or not, needs to think seriously about what those existence conditions should be.
[1] Journal of Ethics and Social Policy 12 (3): 231-258 (2017).
[2] Lindeman’s second objection depends on her view, which I do not share, that “Normative Constitutivism has ambitions to be an explanatory strategy for norms in general” (238, my emphasis).</abstract><pub>Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy</pub><doi>10.26556/jesp.v25i3.1483</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1559-3061 |
ispartof | Journal of ethics & social philosophy, 2023-09, Vol.25 (3), p.642 |
issn | 1559-3061 1559-3061 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A768657116 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Freely Accessible Pre-print Services; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Criticism and interpretation Linderman, Kathryn Normativity (Ethics) |
title | Threshold Constitutivism and Social Kinds |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T23%3A10%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Threshold%20Constitutivism%20and%20Social%20Kinds&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20ethics%20&%20social%20philosophy&rft.au=Coleman,%20Mary%20Clayton&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=642&rft.pages=642-&rft.issn=1559-3061&rft.eissn=1559-3061&rft_id=info:doi/10.26556/jesp.v25i3.1483&rft_dat=%3Cgale_cross%3EA768657116%3C/gale_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A768657116&rfr_iscdi=true |