nucleation

ARG-043: Bencherki's checklist and daycare, one end state with opposite verdicts, show a normative judgment about an organization that depends on a history its end state does not show

2 min read

Properties7
StatusProposed
Formevidence
Tagsethics, social-ontology
Linewill-organization
GroundsLIT-1901 — A pre-individual perspective to organizational action, THEORY-1285 — Organizational action can be described as pre-individual, so that whose action it is, a person's or an organization's, is an outcome of the individuations it is allowed to contribute to rather than a given; an action then has as many significations as the individuations it takes part in, and a person whose action is refused a collective's recognition experiences that as disindividuation
ConcludesCLAIM-518 — Normative judgments about an organization's continuity, reform or obligations can depend on diachronic relations that descriptions of present states or terminal outcomes do not show, so specifying the relevant relations and histories can be necessary to apply them adequately; which continuations ought to follow is a further normative question, not a prerequisite of every normative judgment
Rendered intodocs/arguments-by-conclusion.md

Graph View

The inference

Bencherki presents two cases from the same army base.

  • The checklist (pp. 789–790). A community-made checklist is presented as a service “we offer”, and its authors are named. Bencherki classes this as co-individuation.
  • The daycare (pp. 791–792). The daycare is presented as “one of the services we offer”. It runs only because spouses volunteer, and their work “goes unacknowledged”. Bencherki classes this as usurpation.

The end states match: the army offers a service built on the community’s work. The verdicts differ, so the judgment is not a function of the end state, as CLAIM-518 holds. It also prescribes nothing, as CLAIM-518’s separation of evaluation from prescription expects.

Critical questions

  • Would the evidence be expected if the conclusion were false? No. If such judgments depended only on present states, two cases with the same state would get the same verdict.
  • Does it tell the claim apart from its rivals? Not fully. The rival is that the verdict depends on present attribution, the officer’s words now. That is part of the difference here, since in one case the community is named and in the other it is not. A pair matched on present attribution as well would separate the two.
  • Does the measure measure what it is said to? With a caveat. The verdicts are Bencherki’s, on excerpts from a documentary whose framing he follows (p. 785). Proposed.

Backlinks