---
title: "<DEONTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS />"
language: en
date: 2026-09-12
canonical: "https://andreasvieth.de/en/ppi/dentological-analysis/"
format: markdown
generator: "TYPO3 LLMs.txt Extension"
---

# <DEONTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS />

Export the page as structured markup – Optimised for machine processing and reuse. (Use the browser's back button to return to the website view.)

 [ Read markup ](https://andreasvieth.de/en/ppi/dentological-analysis/.md.md)

## <DEONTOLOGICALANALYSIS />

## The guiding distinction: two types of deontological thinking

Deontology is not one theory but a family of theories held together by a shared fundamental conviction: the moral status of an action does not depend primarily on its consequences, but on what the action is in itself. What diverges within this family is the question of how far this claim extends – and on what ontological basis it stands.

The PTL template for deontological analysis is structurally built upon a guiding distinction that is often neglected in philosophical scholarship: that between **non-contingent (universal) deontology** and **contingent deontology**. Both are genuine deontological positions – but they differ fundamentally in their architecture of validity, their ontology, and their method of judgment formation. The template compels the AI to carry out this distinction as a first analytical step before substantive norm analysis begins.

## Four dimensions of universality – <METHODEN>: four-dimensional analysis

What does it mean for a norm to hold universally? The answer is not one-dimensional. The template operationalises universality across four analytically separate dimensions:

**(a) temporal invariance** – the norm holds *always*, regardless of historical epochs; **(b) spatial invariance** – it holds *everywhere*, regardless of cultures and contexts; **(c) distributive invariance** – it holds *for everyone*, regardless of the person; **(d) categorical modality** – it holds *necessarily*, regardless of the subject's will.

A **non-contingent deontology** claims all four dimensions. Its paradigm is Kant's categorical imperative: duties hold timelessly, across all space, for everyone, and unconditionally. Ontologically, this position requires a truth-maker capable of bearing universality – either Platonic-ideal moral facts or synthetic a priori structures of practical reason.

A **contingent deontology** relinquishes (a), (b), and (c) – and upholds only (d), but in a precisely different form: as *parametric categoricity*. The obligation does not hold for everyone, always, everywhere – but for *this person, in this situation, at this time, in this place*. Formally expressed as **G(phi; t, l, p, s)**: an obligation phi holds as a function of the parameters time (t), place (l), person (p), situation (s). Under fixed parameters, the obligation is categorical – not optional. But other parameters generate other truth-makers and other duties. Contingency is not arbitrariness. It is the relinquishment of (a)–(c) while preserving (d).

The template systematically examines which of these dimensions a text explicitly claims, which it tacitly presupposes, and which it in fact fails to redeem. Many texts assert universal validity (a–d) but in practice operate with situation-bound judgments that redeem only (d) under fixed parameters. This is an inconsistency – and the template renders it visible.

## Fittingness and tendency – the analytical heart of the contingent side

C. D. Broad's concepts stand at the centre of the contingent side of the template. They are not merely supplementary concepts, but the analytical key to a class of deontological texts that cannot be fully grasped through rule subsumption.

**Fittingness** is, for Broad, a direct, two-place ethical relation between an action and the *totality of the situation* – what Broad calls the "total course of events." It is not axiological: it is not a matter of maximising a good. It is not rule-based: there is no general formula that mechanically generates fittingness from individual components. What fits the situation here? This question cannot be answered by deduction, but only by judgment.

**Tendency** (wrong-making / right-making characteristic) is Broad's analysis of moral force vectors. An action-property – such as "being a lie" or "imposing a loss of control on someone" – carries an inherent negative or positive tendency. This is *logico-normative*, not statistical. This is the decisive point: a tendency is not a "potential" in the sense of probability. It is a property of the action's structure itself, independent of whether the harm empirically occurs.

From this follows **moral-luck immunisation**: if the moral fault lies in the structure of the action and not merely in its consequences, then the moral judgment does not change through the contingent non-occurrence of harm. Pupil A withstands the humiliation resiliently, pupil B does not – was the humiliating action therefore "not so bad" for pupil A? In tendency logic: no. The fault lay in the action, not in the outcome.

The template further distinguishes between **Component Fittingness** – the isolated pro tanto vectors of an action with respect to each of its properties, formulable abstractly and universally – and **Resultant Fittingness**: the overall fittingness following a creative synthesis of all relevant components in a *concrete historical constellation*. Resultant fittingness cannot be deduced. It requires moral judgment – Broad's tennis-player analogy: not like calculating trajectories, but like the creative response to a complex, changing situation.

This distinction corresponds structurally to Ross's distinction between prima facie duty (Component) and actual duty (Resultant). Yet where Ross describes the resolution of conflicting duties as intuitive weighing, Broad makes the character of this act of judgment – its creativity, its non-algorithmisability – explicitly the subject of inquiry.

## Viscosity – stability without universalism

The most productive concept of the namespace in terms of validity theory is the **viscosity of validity**. It resolves a problem that protects contingent deontology against the obvious objection: if norms do not hold timelessly and universally, why do they hold stably at all? Why do they not collapse into pure matters of taste with every shift in mood, information, or power?

Viscosity denotes the *inertia, in terms of validity theory, of deontic claims*: they do not collapse with every perturbation. At the same time, they remain contingently revisable – viscosity is not eternity. Wherein is this inertia grounded? Not in Platonic necessity, but in **socio-corporeal conditions of reproduction**: real vulnerabilities, institutional structures, bodily dependencies that exist independently of recognition. These generate stable truth-makers for deontic claims, without solidifying those claims into timeless necessity.

Viscosity is the analytical corrective between two errors: **universalism** overstates stability – it explains through timeless necessity what is explicable through historical conditions of reproduction. **Conventionalism** understates stability – it makes norms revisable through consensus, without explaining why a consensus of exclusion does not create "a different justice," but is simply wrong (*unfitting*), because the relational truth-maker – the vulnerability of those excluded – exists independently of the agreement.

The template translates viscosity into a practical analytical concept through the **viscosity gradient**: when several norms collide, they generally carry differing degrees of inertia. This gradient governs the logic of collision resolution – and renders the analysis more precise than the mere statement that one duty "outweighs" another.

## Truth-makers and ontological minimalism – <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE>

Contingent deontology dispenses with strong ontological entities. It requires no timelessly existing moral facts. It operates with **relational invariants** as truth-makers of deontic statements: ontologically existing states composed of bodily-material facts (vulnerability, dependency), institutional facts (rights, roles, structures of exclusion), and experientially proximate saliencies (loss of control, humiliation). These truth-makers are *objective* – they exist independently of recognition. They are not *universal* – they are historically-practically mediated and context-sensitive.

The **anti-conventionalism test** is the methodological consequence: does the truth-maker for a deontic statement exist independently of consensus? If a consensus of exclusion is formed that excludes certain persons from moral consideration – is this consensus then a different kind of justice, or is it simply wrong? Within contingent deontology: wrong, because the truth-maker (the relational vulnerability of those excluded) exists independently of the agreement.

The template moreover systematically applies the **naturalistic fallacy test** (Moore/Broad): does the text infer directly from the fact "A experiences loss of control" or "statistically, 80% of cases result in trauma" to "A is being treated unjustly"? Empirical data sharpens the description of the situation and supplies candidate truth-makers – but it does not generate an obligation. The transition must be mediated by a tendency-property of the situation, not by statistical correlation.

## Ratio cognoscendi and ratio essendi – <GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE>

One of the most consequential confusions in political and ethical texts is that between the **ground of normativity** (ratio essendi: what makes an action obligatory?) and the **means of cognition** (ratio cognoscendi: how do we come to know what is obligatory?). Political discourse, democratic consensus, and the **double psychology** – the individual affective dispositions that determine which tendencies "take hold" as reasons, and the collective structures of recognition that determine which claims become visible in discourse – are all instances of ratio cognoscendi. They are epistemic infrastructure, not a source of validity.

The template examines, for each text, what role consensus and the double psychology play. Are they employed as aids to cognition – as means of correcting blind spots, of uncovering hitherto invisible structures of vulnerability? Then they are legitimate and important components of moral epistemic labour. Are they employed as sources of validity – is justice "created" through agreement rather than "discovered and corrected"? Then the boundary between ratio cognoscendi and ratio essendi has been transgressed, and the text lapses into conventionalism.

## The template's methodical design: type diagnosis before norm analysis

The template is structured according to a methodical sequence that corresponds to the architecture of the namespace. The **type diagnosis** stands at the beginning: which deontological theory type operates in the text – non-contingent (a–d) or contingent (only d)? This determination decides which analytical operations follow and which errors are particularly to be feared. Texts that oscillate between universal principles and situation-specific argumentation without thematising this tension are candidates for **type inconsistency** – one of the most common and consequential misfigurations in ethical texts.

The type diagnosis is followed by fittingness and tendency analysis, determination of viscosity, truth-maker diagnostics, and examination of ratio cognoscendi/essendi. The analysis of normative structure (duties, prohibitions, permissions, rights, collisions) follows thereafter – now, however, enriched by the analytical instruments that render the deep structure visible: are the identified norms Component Fittingness or Resultant Fittingness? What is their degree of viscosity? Which tendencies do they carry? Does their truth-maker lie in relational invariants or in timeless moral facts?

The PTL project's analytical ideal applies without restriction: not to summarise, but to reconstruct and to judge. The AI is to lay bare the text's deontological theory type, render its metaethical presupposit

## <DEONTOLOGYANALYSIS> ... </DEONTOLOGYANALYSIS>

```markup
<!-- PTL Template für die deontologisch fokussierte Konfiguration eines KI-Prompts -->

<PTL>

  <ZIELE>
    <ZIEL>Type diagnosis: Determination of whether the text operates with non-contingent deontology
    (all four dimensions of universality a–d: temporal, spatial,
    distributive, categorical) or with contingent deontology (only d as
    parametric categoricity under fixed situational parameters t, l, p, s).
    Identification of latent inconsistencies when shifting between the two types.</ZIEL>

    <ZIEL>Norm-structure analysis: Precise identification and classification
    of deontic structures—duties, prohibitions, permissions, rights,
    maxims—with determination of their categorical or hypothetical status
    and the underlying theory of duties (monistic/pluralistic).</ZIEL>

    <ZIEL>Fittingness and Tendency analysis: Elucidation of whether normative
    force in the text is modeled as a direct ethical action/situation relation (Fittingness)
    or as rule conformity; identification of wrong-making
    and right-making Tendencies as logically normative force vectors that
    operate independently of the empirical occurrence of harm (immunization against moral luck).
    Distinction between Component Fittingness (pro tanto vectors) and Resultant
    Fittingness (creative synthesis in the concrete constellation).</ZIEL>

    <ZIEL>Viscosity analysis: Determination of the validity-theoretical inertia
    of deontic norms—their resistance to arbitrary revision while
    remaining open to contingent revisability. Examination of whether
    stability is grounded in timeless necessity (universal side) or in
    socio-corporeal conditions of reproduction (contingent side).
    Identification of the viscosity gradient between conflicting norms.</ZIEL>

    <ZIEL>Truthmaker diagnostics: Clarification of the ontological basis of deontic
    statements—Platonic-ideal moral facts, naturalistic facts
    (with a risk of fallacious inference), or relational invariants arising from world and
    person facts (vulnerability, power asymmetry, structure of exclusion)
    as candidates for the relational truthmaker of contingent deontology.</ZIEL>

    <ZIEL>Strict separation of levels: Separation of deontological normativity from
    consequentialist and axiological elements; identification of
    hybrid forms; ratio cognoscendi / ratio essendi distinction (consensus as
    epistemic infrastructure, not as a source of validity).</ZIEL>
  </ZIELE>

  <THEMA>Deontological ethics—non-contingent and contingent types,
  Fittingness, Tendency, viscosity of validity, parametric categoricity</THEMA>

  <PERSPEKTIVE>Deontological, normative, validity-theoretical, metaethical,
  ontological (truthmaker question)</PERSPEKTIVE>

  <METHODEN>
    <METHODE>Four-dimensional analysis of universality (a–d): Systematic
    examination of deontic statements in terms of (a) temporal invariance, (b) spatial
    invariance, (c) distributive invariance, and (d) categorical modality.
    Identification of which dimensions are explicitly claimed, tacitly presupposed,
    or not in fact satisfied. Core test: Does the text claim
    universal validity (a–d) while in fact operating with situation-bound
    judgments that satisfy only (d) under fixed parameters?</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Fittingness relation test: Examination of whether normative force is modeled as a direct
    ethical action/situation relation (Fittingness according to Broad) or as
    rule conformity. Operationalization: Would the same action
    be judged differently in a different overall situation without any rule
    having changed? If so: Fittingness normativity. Analysis of whether the text
    recognizes the 'total course of events' as the relevant unit of evaluation.
    Delimitation: Fittingness is neither utility maximization nor rule subsumption.</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Tendency analysis and moral-luck test: Distinction between 'potential'
    (statistical-empirical) and 'Tendency' (logically normative). An action
    carries a wrong-making Tendency if its property (e.g., 'imposing loss of
    control') as such has a negative moral force vector—
    independently of the empirical occurrence of harm. Test: Does the moral
    assessment in the text change if the harm does not occur? If so: potential logic,
    not a concept of Tendency. Tendencies are weights in judgment, not absolute
    prohibitions; they can be outweighed by other Tendencies.</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Component–Resultant distinction and creativity diagnosis:
    Component Fittingness consists in isolated pro tanto directional vectors of an action
    (formulable in the abstract, e.g., 'promises ought pro tanto to be kept').
    Resultant Fittingness is the overall appropriateness following the creative synthesis
    of all components in a concrete historical constellation. Examination:
    Is synthesis conceived as mechanical deduction (non-contingent side) or as
    an exercise of creative judgment (contingent side, Broad's tennis-player
    analogy)? Resultant Fittingness is not deducible.</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Viscosity test: Analysis of validity-theoretical inertia—
    does the deontic claim withstand ordinary fluctuations in perspective,
    information, and interest without collapsing into a judgment of taste? And does
    it remain open to revision without solidifying into timeless necessity? Viscosity
    is the corrective to two errors: universalism (overstates stability)
    and conventionalism (understates stability). Determination of the
    viscosity gradient between conflicting norms as the basis of the
    conflict-resolution logic.</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Truthmaker diagnostics: Examination of the three candidates—
    (1) Platonic-ideal moral facts (universal, timeless),
    (2) naturalistic facts (risk of fallacious inference: directly from 'A experiences loss of control'
    to 'A is unjust'),
    (3) relational invariants (vulnerability, power asymmetry,
    structure of exclusion) as objective, consensus-independent truthmakers without
    a claim to universality. Anti-conventionalism test: Does the truthmaker
    exist independently of recognition?</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Parametric categoricity G(phi; t, l, p, s): Operationalization
    of contingent deontology as a function: An ought phi applies for time (t),
    place (l), person (p), situation (s). Contingency in (a–c): different parameters
    generate different truthmakers and different duties. Categoricity in (d): with
    fixed parameters, the ought is not optional. Examination of which parameters
    a text makes explicit and which it overextends through universalization.</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Categorical/hypothetical test: Examination of whether normative statements are
    based on an unconditional imperative or are end-dependent. On the
    universal side: universal formulability as a criterion (Kant).
    On the contingent side: categoricity is local under fixed parameters,
    not end-dependent—but neither is it timelessly universal.</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Prima facie/actual-duty distinction (Ross): Analysis of
    conflicts of duties; identification of the viscosity gradient between
    conflicting duties; reconstruction of resolution strategies.
    Component Fittingness structurally corresponds to prima facie duties;
    Resultant Fittingness to the actual judgment.</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Ratio cognoscendi / ratio essendi distinction: Distinction between the
    ground of validity (ratio essendi: what makes an action obligatory?) and the
    means of cognition (ratio cognoscendi: how do we learn what is obligatory?).
    Political discourse, democratic consensus, and dual psychology
    (individual/collective) are ratio cognoscendi—not sources of validity.
    Test: Is justice 'created' in the text (consensus = ratio essendi)
    or 'discovered/corrected' (consensus = ratio cognoscendi)?</METHODE>

    <METHODE>Separation of the levels of norm content/validity: Reconstruction of deontic
    content strictly separately from its legitimation; viscosity as
    a validity-theoretical attribute of the norm to be presented separately.</METHODE>
  </METHODEN>

  <KATEGORIEN>
    <!-- Typologische Grundkategorien -->
    <KATEGORIE>Non-contingent / universal deontology: All four
    dimensions of universality (a–d) are claimed—timeless, trans-spatial,
    applying to everyone, categorically necessary. Paradigms: Kant's categorical imperative,
    Platonic moral facts, a priori lists of duties. Ontologically:
    an ontology of ideas or synthetic a priori moral facts as
    bearers of universality.</KATEGORIE>

    <KATEGORIE>Contingent deontology: Only dimension (d) as parametric
    categoricity—under fixed parameters (t, l, p, s), the ought applies
    categorically, without a claim to (a–c). Normativity is situation-bound,
    contingently revisable, but not optional. Validity is viscous: inert,
    not rigid. Ontologically minimalist: relational invariants as
    truthmakers, no timeless ideal entities.</KATEGORIE>

    <KATEGORIE>Dimensions of universality (a–d): (a) temporal ['always']—
    invariance across historical epochs; (b) spatial ['everywhere']—invariance
    across cultures and contexts; (c) distributive ['for everyone']—invariance across
    persons; (d) categorical ['necessarily']—non-optionality, independently
    of volition. Contingency is not arbitrariness, but the relinquishment of (a–c)
    while retaining (d).</KATEGORIE>

    <!-- Broads Begriffe -->
    <KATEGORIE>Fittingness (appropriateness): Direct, dyadic ethical
    relation between an action and the totality of the situation ('total
    course of events'). Not axiological (no maximized good), not
    rule-based (no subsumption), but relational: What fits the
    situation here? No general formula for calculation. Delimitation: neither utility
    maximization nor conformity with a universal rule.</KATEGORIE>

    <KATEGORIE>Tendency (Wrong/Right-Making Characteristic): Inherent
    moral force vector of a property of an action (e.g., 'being a lie',
    'imposing loss of control')—pro tanto negative/positive, independently of the
    empirical occurrence of harm (immunization against moral luck). Tendencies are
    weights in judgment, not absolute prohibitions; they can be outweighed by other
    Tendencies. Delimitation: Tendency is not statistical
    'potential'.</KATEGORIE>

    <KATEGORIE>Component Fittingness vs. Resultant Fittingness: Component:
    isolated pro tanto appropriateness of an action with respect to one
    of its properties—formulable in the abstract and capable of universal formulation.
    Resultant: overall appropriateness following the creative synthesis of all components
    in a concrete historical constellation—not mechanically deducible,
    but a matter of judgment (skill, artistic composition). Structural
    correspondence: Component ≈ prima facie duty (Ross);
    Resultant ≈ actual duty.</KATEGORIE>

    <KATEGORIE>Deontological creativity: In marginal situations,
    dogmatic applications of rules fail. Moral judgment becomes an act of synthesis:
    multiple, partly conflicting Component vectors are composed into an order
    appropriate to the situation. Broad's analogy: not like
    calculating trajectories (the dogmatist), but like a
    tennis player's response to a complex situation. Normatively disciplined by
    Tendency vectors.</KATEGORIE>

    <!-- Viskosität -->
    <KATEGORIE>Viscosity of validity: A validity-theoretical concept of the
    inertia of deontic claims against arbitrary revision—they
    do not collapse with every shift in mood, information, or power
    (minimum stability), yet remain contingently revisable (not eternal).
    Ground of the inertia: not Platonic necessity, but
    socio-corporeal conditions of reproduction (real vulnerabilities,
    institutional structures). Viscosity is the corrective between
    universalism (overstates stability) and conventionalism (understates
    stability). Viscosity gradient: differing degrees of inertia among
    conflicting norms determine the conflict-resolution logic.</KATEGORIE>

    <!-- Wahrmacher und Ontologie -->
    <KATEGORIE>Truthmakers of deontic statements (Truthmaker): Three models:
    (1) Platonic truthmaker: ideal moral facts, existing timelessly—
    universal side. (2) Naturalistic truthmaker: empirical facts—
    risk of fallacy (Moore/Broad). (3) Relational truthmaker (contingent
    deontology): ontologically existing states composed of world and person facts—
    corporeal-material facts (vulnerability, dependency), institutional
    facts (rights, roles), experience-near saliences (loss of control,
    exclusion). Objective (consensus-independent) without being universal.</KATEGORIE>

    <KATEGORIE>Parametric categoricity G(phi; t, l, p, s): Formal structure
    of contingent deontology—ought phi applies as a function of time (t),
    place (l), person (p), situation (s). Contingency in (a–c): different parameters,
    different truthmakers, different duties. Categoricity in (d): with fixed
    parameters, the ought is not optional. Inclusion as a test case:
    duties arise from concrete structures of vulnerability.</KATEGORIE>

    <!-- Geltungstheorie -->
    <KATEGORIE>Ratio cognoscendi vs. ratio essendi: Ground of normativity
    (ratio essendi: what makes an action obligatory?) vs. means of cognition
    (ratio cognoscendi: how do we learn what is obligatory?). Political discourse,
    democratic consensus, and dual psychology are ratio cognoscendi—
    not sources of validity. A consensus on exclusion would not be 'a different
    justice,' but objectively wrong (unfitting), because the truthmaker
    exists independently of the agreement.</KATEGORIE>

    <KATEGORIE>Dual psychology (individual/collective): Epistemological
    mechanism of access to ought-claims. (1) Individual: affective and
    habitual dispositions determine which Tendencies 'take hold' as reasons.
    (2) Collective/political: orders of recognition, conflict situations, and
    power structures determine which claims become visible in discourse.
    Both levels are contingent—hence viscosity is required to explain
    stability without universality.</KATEGORIE>

    <!-- Normstruktur-Kategorien -->
    <KATEGORIE>Duty / Obligation (categorical)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Prima facie duty vs. actual duty (Ross)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Pro tanto / All-things-considered / Side constraints:
    Pro tanto duties are Tendencies—acting in one direction and
    capable of being outweighed by other Tendencies. All-things-considered: the result of
    synthesis (Resultant Fittingness). Side constraints: strong negative vectors
    (humiliation, coercion) that cannot be compensated for by arbitrary benefits
    and that asymmetrically constrain the logic of weighing.</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Prohibition</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Permission</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Rights (subjective claim positions; correlative duties)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Human dignity / formula of humanity as an end in itself</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Moral luck and Tendency immunization: If moral assessment
    depends on the occurrence of harm (potential logic), the judgment
    changes by chance. Immunity through Tendency: the moral error lies in the
    structure of the action (coercion, exclusion, humiliation), not merely in the outcome.</KATEGORIE>
  </KATEGORIEN>

  <REGELN>
    <REGEL1>Type diagnosis first: Determine whether the text operates with non-contingent
    deontology (a–d universally) or with contingent deontology
    (only d as parametric categoricity). Examine the four dimensions of universality
    systematically and demonstrate which are explicitly claimed, which are presupposed,
    and which are not in fact satisfied. Document inconsistencies
    in shifts between the types by citing passages from the text.</REGEL1>

    <REGEL2>Fittingness test: Examine whether normative force is modeled as a direct ethical
    action/situation relation (Fittingness) or as rule conformity.
    Identify whether the text recognizes the 'total course of events'
    as the unit of evaluation. Clearly distinguish Fittingness from
    utility maximization.</REGEL2>

    <REGEL3>Tendency analysis: Identify wrong-making and right-making
    Tendencies in the text as logically normative force vectors, not as
    statistical potentials. Conduct the moral-luck test: Does the judgment change
    if the harm does not occur? Distinguish Component Fittingness
    (pro tanto vectors) from Resultant Fittingness (creative synthesis)
    and examine whether the text conceives synthesis as deduction or as
    an exercise of judgment.</REGEL3>

    <REGEL4>Viscosity test: Determine the viscosity level of each
    identified norm—how strongly does it resist arbitrary revision?
    Examine whether stability is grounded in timeless necessity (universal side)
    or in socio-corporeal conditions of reproduction (contingent side).
    Determine the viscosity gradient between conflicting norms and show how it
    guides conflict resolution.</REGEL4>

    <REGEL5>Truthmaker diagnostics: Clarify the ontological status of deontic
    statements—Platonic, naturalistic (with the risk of fallacious inference), or
    relationally invariant. Apply the anti-conventionalism test: Does the
    truthmaker exist independently of consensus?</REGEL5>

    <REGEL6>Ratio cognoscendi / ratio essendi distinction: Examine the status
    of political consensus, discourse, and dual psychology in the text—
    source of validity or epistemic infrastructure. Explicitly identify
    conflations of these levels.</REGEL6>

    <REGEL7>Strict separation of levels: Separate deontological normativity from
    consequentialist and axiological elements. Identify hybrid passages.
    Separate norm content from legitimation of validity; present viscosity separately as a
    validity-theoretical attribute. Check for naturalistic fallacies.</REGEL7>
  </REGELN>

  <ANALYSEKRITERIEN>
    <KRITERIUM>Correct type diagnosis (non-contingent vs. contingent), with
    systematic examination of the four dimensions of universality and identification
    of inconsistencies in shifts between types—with textual evidence.</KRITERIUM>

    <KRITERIUM>Precise identification of Fittingness relations and
    Tendency vectors; clear separation from potential logic; correct
    distinction between Component/Resultant Fittingness; diagnosis of the
    creative or deductive mode of synthesis.</KRITERIUM>

    <KRITERIUM>Determination of viscosity for each identified norm: degree of
    inertia, basis of stability (necessity or conditions of
    reproduction), viscosity gradient in conflicts—with textual evidence.</KRITERIUM>

    <KRITERIUM>Truthmaker diagnostics: Clarification of the ontological type;
    demonstration of consensus independence (contingent side) or
    the bearer of universality (universal side).</KRITERIUM>

    <KRITERIUM>Correct ratio cognoscendi / ratio essendi distinction;
    identification of the role of consensus and dual psychology in the text.</KRITERIUM>

    <KRITERIUM>Systematic separation of levels: norm content / legitimation of validity /
    viscosity / truthmaker presented as analytically separate dimensions.</KRITERIUM>
  </ANALYSEKRITERIEN>

  <METAPRUEFUNGEN>
    <!-- Prüft Kohärenz der Typdiagnose und aller Viskositätszuschreibungen -->
    <PRUEFEKOHAERENZ />

    <!-- Stellt sicher, dass alle Aussagen zu Tendency, Fittingness und
         Viskosität textbasiert belegt sind -->
    <PRUEFETEXTBEZUG />

    <!-- Reflexion über eigene normative Vorannahmen, insbesondere beim
         Viskositäts- und Typurteil -->
    <PRUEFEANNAHMEN />

    <!-- Regt an, alternative Lesarten zu erwägen: Könnte die Norm als
         Resultant statt Component gelten? Könnte ein universaler Text
         kontingent gelesen werden? -->
    <FINDEARGUMENTALTERNATIVE />

    <!-- Fordert Erläuterung der Relevanz der Typdiagnose für das Textproblem -->
    <ERLAEUTERERELEVANZ />

    <!-- Prüft Kategorienfehler: Wurde konsequentialistische Argumentation
         als deontologisch klassifiziert? Wurde Fittingness mit Utility
         verwechselt? Wurde Tendency mit Potenzial gleichgesetzt? -->
    <PRUEFEKATEGORIENFEHLER />

    <!-- Prüft Viskositätskonsistenz: Werden gleichartige Normen mit
         unterschiedlicher Trägheit behandelt ohne Begründung? Wird
         Viskosität mit absoluter Geltung verwechselt? -->
    <PRUEFEVISKOSITAETSKONSISTENZ />

    <!-- Prüft Wahrmacher-Konsistenz: Wird die ontologische Basis der
         deontischen Aussagen konsistent gehalten (platonisch vs. relational)?
         Gibt es naturalistische Fehlschlüsse? -->
    <PRUEFEWAHRMACHERKONSISTENZ />
  </METAPRUEFUNGEN>

  <SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>

    <BEGRIFFSANALYSE
      ziel="Präzisierung der zentralen deontologischen Schlüsselbegriffe
      beider Theorietypen; Aufdeckung von Äquivokationen zwischen universaler
      und kontingenter Verwendung">
      Identify and clarify the central deontic expressions in the text:
      “duty,” “right,” “ought,” “categorical,” “maxim,” “dignity,”
      “appropriateness,” “Tendency,” “Fittingness,” “pro tanto,” “viscosity,”
      “validity,” “vulnerability.” Determine in each case whether terms are used in the universal
      or contingent sense. Check for polysemy and
      equivocation, especially when shifting between types of theory.
      Analyze viscosity markers: “absolute,” “unconditional,” “under no
      circumstances,” “nevertheless,” “despite everything,” “in this situation,”
      “for this person,” and similar expressions.
    </BEGRIFFSANALYSE>

    <NORMATIVEANALYSE
      fokus="normativ"
      analyseniveau="detailanalyse|begruendung"
      normart="kategorisch"
      reduzierbarkeit="logisch_ultimativ"
      naturalismus="non-naturalistisch"
      anwendungsfallanalyse="true"
      beweisforderung="true">
      <!-- Deontologisch kalibrierte Normativitätsanalyse:
           – Identifiziere alle deontischen Strukturen mit Typzuordnung
             (universal/kontingent) und Universalitätsdimensions-Profil (a–d)
           – Prüfe kategorisch/hypothetisch-Status mit Textbeleg
           – Rekonstruiere die Pflichtentheorie als Ganzes:
             monistisch (ein Oberspruch) oder pluralistisch (Ross)?
             Entspricht die Kollisionslogik dem Viskositätsgefälle?
           – Identifiziere Fittingness-Relationen und Tendency-Vektoren;
             unterscheide Component von Resultant Fittingness;
             diagnostiziere Deduktions- vs. Kreativitätsmodus der Synthesis
           – Suche nach Tendencies, die als Side constraints wirken
             (asymmetrische Abwägungsschranken)
           – Dokumentiere Viskositätsgrad jeder Norm mit Textbeleg
           – Trenne Norminhalt streng von Geltungslegitimation
      -->
    </NORMATIVEANALYSE>

    <GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE
      fokus="viskositaet|ratio_cognoscendi_essendi|wahrmacher|parametrische_kategorizitaet">
      <!-- Geltungstheoretische Vertiefung, deontologisch fokussiert:
           – Viskositätsanalyse: Bestimme Trägheitsgrad und Revisionsbedingungen
             jeder Norm; prüfe, ob Stabilität durch zeitlose Notwendigkeit
             oder sozial-leibliche Reproduktionsbedingungen begründet wird;
             bestimme Viskositätsgefälle bei Kollisionen
           – Ratio-cognoscendi / Ratio-essendi-Trennung: Kläre den Status
             von Konsens, Diskurs und doppelter Psychologie im Text;
             ist Gerechtigkeit 'geschaffen' oder 'entdeckt/korrigiert'?
           – Parametrische Kategorität G(phi; t, l, p, s): Prüfe, welche
             Parameter fixiert und welche universalisierend überdehnt werden;
             analysiere Inklusion als Pflicht-Prüfstein
           – Wahrmacher-Diagnostik auf der Geltungsebene: Wird der Wahrmacher
             als konsensunabhängig behandelt?
      -->
    </GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE>

    <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE
      fokus="wahrmacher|ontologischer_minimalismus|relationale_invarianten">
      <!-- Ontologische Analyse der deontischen Basis:
           – Wahrmacher-Typbestimmung: platonisch-ideal, naturalistisch
             (Fehlschlusstest), oder relational-invariant
           – Prüfe ontologischen Minimalismus vs. Ideenontologie:
             Werden deontische Begriffe als logisch ultimativ oder als
             abhängig von empirisch verfügbaren Sachverhalten eingeführt?
           – Identifiziere die konkreten relationalen Invarianten des Textes:
             leib-materielle Tatsachen, institutionelle Tatsachen,
             erfahrungsnahe Salienzen
           – Anti-Konventionalismus-Test: Existiert der Wahrmacher
             unabhängig von Anerkennung?
           – Naturalismus-Diagnose und Fehlschlusstest (Moore/Broad):
             Wird von Empirie direkt auf Sollen geschlossen?
      -->
    </ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE>

  </SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>

  <TEXTERSTELLUNG>
    <!-- Die Texterstellung soll folgende Struktur aufweisen:
         1. Typdiagnose: Nicht-kontingent (a–d) oder kontingent (nur d)?
            Nachweis des Universalitätsdimensions-Profils; Inkonsistenzen benannt.
         2. Fittingness und Tendency: Welche Relationen und Kraftvektoren
            operieren im Text? Component/Resultant-Unterscheidung;
            Kreativitäts- oder Deduktionsmodus?
         3. Viskosität: Viskositätsgrade der Normen; Gefälle bei Kollisionen;
            Basis der Stabilität (Notwendigkeit oder Reproduktionsbedingungen).
         4. Wahrmacher: Ontologischer Typ der deontischen Basis.
         5. Ratio-cognoscendi / Ratio-essendi: Status von Konsens und
            doppelter Psychologie im Text.
         6. Normstruktur: Pflichten, Verbote, Erlaubnisse, Rechte –
            mit Kollisionsanalyse und Viskositätsgefälle.
         7. Kohärenzurteil: Konsistenz der Typverwendung; Inkonsistenzen;
            naturalistische Fehlschlüsse; Fittingness/Utility-Verwechslungen.
    -->
  </TEXTERSTELLUNG>

</PTL>
```

 *<DEONTOLOGIEANALYSE> ... </DEONTOLOGIEANALYSE>*