On Normative Discourse

• Author: Gianfrancesco Zanetti
• Published date: 01 March 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12118
• Date: 01 March 2016

On Normative Discourse

GIANFRANCESCO ZANETTI*

Abstract. If speaking of justice were the same thing as banging on the table, then

normative discourse could not be taken seriously. The aim of this paper, however, is

to vindicate the meaningfulness, and rationality, of normative discourse, and to out-

line its conditions of possibility. Normative discourse can be understood as if there

were, in its structure, different “stages,” or layers. In the transition from one stage to

the next, complexity increases. Thus, I shall depict the emergence of normative dis-

course as a kind of genetic process.

1. The Three Stages of Normative Discourse

1.1. The First Stage: Functionality and Technique

The “phase” that paves the way for the emergence of normative discourse does not

in itself have anything normative: It does not fall within the realm of normative

discourse proper. It is the phase of functionality, or functional explanation.

By itself, the accomplishment of a function, be it a biological one or the function

accomplished by an artifact, can be accounted for in purely descriptive terms. A

tree’s tropism can be described by referring to the model of the functioning of a

complex machine. The logic of functionality is not in the least normative, yet it is

highly relevant to normative discourse, as will be seen presently.

Since living individuals typically depend on their environment for their survival,

they have a positive perception of favorable circumstances and a negative percep-

tion of unfavorable ones. A tree perceives water positively, thus extending its roots

in that direction: In this case water is perceived prima facie as fundamentally good,

useful, desirable (in a figurative sense, of course).

The starting point in the conceptual genesis of normative discourse is the domain

of reflective understanding of the different ways of securing favourable conditions

(and avoiding unfavourable ones) for one’s survival and biological flourishing.

This is the domain where we see the development of the kind of reflection leading

to the formulation of technical rules—namely, rules of the form “If you want to

attain goal G, you have to phy” (where phy-ing is, it is assumed, conducive to the

attainment of G; see von Wright 1963).

* I would like tothank Bruno Celano for his extensive,and extremely helpful,written comments

and suggestions.

V

C2016 The Author. Ratio Juris V

C2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main

Street, Malden 02148, USA.

Ratio Juris. Vol. 29 No. 1 March 2016 (44–58)