Commenting on this modification is closed; the modification is accepted.
Enable comment auto-refresher
I support the acceptance of this definition. However, its acceptance will require making significant changes to our accepted definitions of ‘normative theory’ and ‘employment’.
First ‘norm’ is simply a shortened way of referring to ‘normative theory’. The definition of normative theory should be modified to indicate that a normative theory may also be referred to as a ‘norm’. We would also need to make a redirect so that any search for ‘norm’ leads to the definition for ‘normative theory’.
Secondly, we need to modify our definition of ‘employment’ (Epistemic stances towards methods – Employment (Barseghyan -2015), since it currently only mentions methods as epistemic elements towards which this stance can be taken. The definition would need to be modified to indicate that any kind of normative theory, and not just methods, can be employed (in general, this definition, as currently stated in the encyclopedia, isn’t very good and needs work).
I would point out that if these two changes are made, the new definition of 'norm employment' will become a deductive consequence of them. Is it then worthwhile to state, as its own separate definition in the encyclopedia? Or, instead, should it simply be regarded as an understood consequence of the modified definitions of 'normative theory' and 'employment' without the need for a separate definition?
This is to record that a consensus regarding this modification has emerged primarily off-line, outside this discussion page.
You are not allowed to post comments.