Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Recurso digital |
| Lenguaje: | inglés |
| Publicado: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19342109 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Tabla de Contenidos:
- <p>Repair is often treated as a residual appendix to failure: a primary duty breaks, and one then adds apology, compensation, or some other secondary response. We argue that this picture is too thin. Once obligation is understood dynamically, interruption, defeat, violation, and corruption do not end normativity but leave different kinds of residue, and those residues generate different successor duties.</p> <p>The account developed here treats repair as the continuation of normativity under path failure. It distinguishes five repair families: continuation, acknowledgment, restitution, transfer, and institutional reform. It also specifies conditions for genuine repair: content-invariance, fittingness to mode of failure, addressee-sensitivity, public legibility, and sequencing. The central formal payoffs are that no uniform repair operator can remain adequate across heterogeneous failure profiles, that adequate response has minimal package structure tracking only the families live in a given profile, and that the repair taxonomy is structurally forced by adequacy constraints rather than merely heuristic.</p> <p>The positive consequence is a more constructive picture of post-failure normativity. Repair is not moral aftercare appended to an otherwise complete theory. It belongs to the internal dynamics by which practices preserve standing, redistribute burdens, restore damaged routing and uptake conditions, and sustain future norm-governed action. Some repair packages can themselves reenter the primary normative layer once stabilized and authorized, while irreparability marks not the end of normativity but a transformation of its target.</p>