Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9260084" data-attributes="member: 71699">Reflecting on what others have posted, I see that it might not be clear why considering principles and normative-force matters in relation to the OP. To my reading, the remarks cited there imply a claim that only rules have the force to compel the unwelcome and unwanted. Thus it becomes salient to question not just what is compelled (the unwelcome and unwanted), but how it compels (how it obtains sufficient normative-force).One route is to count unwritten rules along with written. Perhaps one could say something like - only designed or intentionally adopted rules - written or otherwise - will have sufficient normative-force to compel the unwelcome and unwanted. (Commitments are needed here around whether &quot;rules&quot; means &quot;mediating cues / mechanics&quot;, or just any kind of rule including procedural?) Hence my exploration of principles, which are often unwritten and in any event are distinct from rules forming mechanics. Can principles have the needed normative-force? In essence, I ask why should rules and rules alone be needed to compel the unwelcome and unwanted? What is it about rules that ensures it, where other strategies fail? Is it just that they crystallise the particulars of the unwanted so that we know what sort of thing to say? Or is it as [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] suggests, that they put consequences at arms length... a form of social prophylactic. Or is it (or is it also) as I suggest, that they are by habit conceded sufficient normative-force to compel... even to compel the unwanted?One could say all three, with each necessary but no one sufficient. Even so, what excludes achieving the same thing via principles?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9260084, member: 71699"] Reflecting on what others have posted, I see that it might not be clear why considering principles and normative-force matters in relation to the OP. To my reading, the remarks cited there imply a claim that only rules have the force to compel the unwelcome and unwanted. Thus it becomes salient to question not just [I]what[/I] is compelled (the unwelcome and unwanted), but [I]how [/I]it compels (how it obtains sufficient normative-force). One route is to count unwritten rules along with written. Perhaps one could say something like - only designed or intentionally adopted rules - written or otherwise - will have sufficient normative-force to compel the unwelcome and unwanted. (Commitments are needed here around whether "rules" means "mediating cues / mechanics", or just any kind of rule including procedural?) Hence my exploration of principles, which are often unwritten and in any event are distinct from rules forming mechanics. Can principles have the needed normative-force? In essence, I ask why should rules and rules alone be needed to compel the unwelcome and unwanted? What is it about rules that ensures it, where other strategies fail? Is it just that they crystallise the particulars of the unwanted so that we know what sort of thing to say? Or is it as [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] suggests, that they put consequences at arms length... a form of social prophylactic. Or is it (or is it also) as I suggest, that they are by habit conceded sufficient normative-force to compel... even to compel the unwanted? One could say all three, with each necessary but no one sufficient. Even so, what excludes achieving the same thing via principles? [/QUOTE]

Verification