Deontic artifacts. Investigating the normativity of objects

Lorini, Giuseppe; Moroni, Stefano; Loddo, Olimpia Giuliana

doi:10.1080/13869795.2021.1908584

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also the hypothesis assuming that the set of normative interventions and that of regulatory ones are detached (fifth option in Table 1) is clearly incorrect. In fact, there are regulatory interventions expressed through written or drawn deontic rules or through deontic artifacts (Lorini et al, 2021(Lorini et al, , 2023 which are patently normative; at the same time, there are normative interventions which are regulatory (for instance, all regulatory interventions performed through deontic rules of the kind "Smoking is prohibited").…”

Section: Assessing the Five Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rules without regulation and regulation without rules

Lorini,

Moroni

2024

J Theory Soc Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In everyday discourse, and also in the academic literature, the expressions “regulatory interventions” (i.e. interventions intended to regulate behaviours) and “normative interventions” (i.e. interventions which set norms/rules) are usually assumed to be synonymous. From this perspective, any regulatory intervention is also normative, and vice versa. This article investigates the relationship between regulation and rules/norms in order to verify whether the “regulatory” and the “normative” aspects are intrinsically and essentially connected, as is usually thought (on the assumption that there is no regulation without rules and no rules without regulation).

show abstract

Section: Assessing the Five Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rules without regulation and regulation without rules

Lorini,

Moroni

2024

J Theory Soc Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the dual nature of technology, meaning that technological artefacts can be of course physically produced, but unlike other types of physical objects, they are created in order to achieve specific human goals: this is their aim or function (Dipert, 1993 and1995;Kroes & Meijers, 2006;Vermaas & Houkes, 2006;Lorini et al, 2021). This means that an artefact can be described as a designed physical structure and in terms of the functions related to human intentions.…”

Section: Innovation and The Dual Nature Of Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Types of Technological Innovation in the Face of Uncertainty

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological innovation is almost always investigated from an economic perspective; with few exceptions, the specific technological and social nature of innovation is often ignored. We argue that a novel way to characterise and make sense of different types of technological innovation is to start considering uncertainty. This seems plausible since technological development and innovation almost always occur under conditions of uncertainty. We rely on the distinction between, on the one hand, uncertainty that can be quantified (e.g. probabilistic risk) and, on the other, deep forms of uncertainty that may resist the possibility of being quantified (e.g. severe or fundamental uncertainties). On the basis of these different ingredients of uncertainty in technological innovation, we propose a new taxonomy that reveals the technological nature of innovation. Unlike previous taxonomies employed to handle different types of technological innovations, our taxonomy does not consider the economic value of innovation alone; it is much more oriented towards societal preferences and forms of technological uncertainty. Finally, we investigate the coherence of our proposal with the dual nature of technological artefacts, showing that innovation can be grounded on structural and functional factors and not just on economic ones.

show abstract

“…On the difference between meaning shifts and referent shifts in the semiotics of the word 'norm' see Di Lucia and Passerini Glazel [34]. 19 Conte's list of referents of 'norm' may be expanded to also include deontic behaviours and deontic objects or artifacts (see, for instance, Passerini Glazel [55][56][57]; Lorini et al [44]). Similar analysis of the plurality of referents of the German terms 'Norm' and 'Bestimmung'-which means "enactment" and is thus closely related to 'norm'-can be found in Spiegelberg [71,72] and Reinach [61, pp.…”

Section: The Sigmatics Of 'Norm': Five Possible Referentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Sigmatics of the Word ‘Norm’: An Ontological Turn in the Semiotics of the Normative

Lucia

Glazel

2022

Int J Semiot Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the twentieth century, the development of semiotics and philosophy of language had a great influence on the investigation of normative phenomena, particularly within the philosophy of law: the analysis of normative language became the prevalent methodological approach among many legal philosophers, and the science of law was frequently understood as an analysis of the object language of law. This approach led to the development of a linguistic ontology of the normative and to a semiotic theory of the validity of norms, in which norms are conceived of as linguistic entities, and their validity is accordingly conceived of as a predicate of normative sentences. However, the resort to a semiotic approach for the investigation of normative phenomena does not necessarily imply the adoption of a linguistic ontology of norms. The semiotic analysis of the possible referents of the word ‘norm’ elaborated by Conte (“Studio per una teoria della validità”, Giappichelli, Torino [1970]1995; entry “Norma” in Enciclopedia filosofica, Bompiani, Milano, 2006) shows that the word ‘norm’ may alternately refer to both linguistic entities and non-linguistic entities, such as deontic states-of-affairs and deontic noemata. Such a “sigmatic” analysis exhibits the relevance of the ontological notion of deontic states-of-affairs, and of the correlative notion of “syntactical validity”. After reconstructing Conte’s theory of validity, we wonder whether validity is necessarily to be conceived of as asystemic validity, or also an asystemic and factual validity of norms should be considered.

show abstract

Deontic artifacts. Investigating the normativity of objects

Cited by 13 publications

References 54 publications

Rules without regulation and regulation without rules

Rules without regulation and regulation without rules

Types of Technological Innovation in the Face of Uncertainty

Towards a Sigmatics of the Word ‘Norm’: An Ontological Turn in the Semiotics of the Normative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About