🎓
Academic Evaluation
This article constitutes a distinctive contribution in the field of normative philosophy and socio-political sciences. It sheds light on the core dilemma represented by the absence of a shared epistemic foundation upon which a system of justice binding on all can be built. Its importance lies in distinguishing between particular ethical systems, which bind a specific community or culture, and a universal normative system, which binds the shared human sphere.
The article is distinguished by its analytical capacity to link intellectual history (e.g., Aristotelian logic and its previous role) with contemporary transformations (the scientific mind’s requirement for shared evidence). It reveals how tools once regarded as universal became private sources. It also offers a balanced critical reading of the vacuum left by this transformation, showing its impact on religious, philosophical, and political projects alike.
The academic value of the text lies not only in diagnosing the crisis of past models but also in opening a new research horizon by proposing Existential Rights as the common ground for rebuilding the normative system. Through this proposal, the article enriches the philosophical debate on justice and rights, providing an original contribution to the search for universal normative foundations.
Problem Statement (Summary)
Throughout history, humans have sought to establish normative systems to regulate justice among individuals and communities. Religions and major philosophies have offered their models, each according to its sources and epistemic horizon. Yet these models consistently collided with the limits of their tools: what each community considers a certainty remains a particular and does not automatically become a universal.
Adopting a private source (revelation, rational axioms, intuition, etc.) is legitimate and recognized. But attempting to generalize it to others cannot be done through conflict or domination, but only through the ability to articulate it in a shared rational language. Here lies the difference between a cultural project confined to its environment, and a civilizational project that finds its place in the shared human domain.
Keywords
Normative justice – Certainty and demonstration – Universal and particular – Existential rights – Takamolya Scientific Method – Scientific–Unifying Cosmology.
Main Text
The crisis of normative justice is not about the absence of attempts, but about the absence of a shared foundation binding on all. Most normative systems emerged from particular premises, which made them valid within their environment but incapable of transforming into a universal basis. The result was that individuals lived in a normative vacuum: bound by internal commitments but without guarantees for their rights in the broader public sphere.
The absence of such a foundation created a double vacuum:
The religious sphere found itself confined to its private acceptances.
The non-religious sphere settled for fragile political compromises that did not establish justice.
More dangerously, different systems imposed obligations without guaranteeing existential rights. A person might be bound by the standards of their sect or community but still lack real protection in the public domain, where shared life is managed. Many thus turned to the idea of the “civil state,” believing it to be the solution—only to discover that, with its modernist background, it reproduced new forms of domination, leaving the individual merely a follower of the political class.
The solution proposed by Foundational Sciences is the distinction between:
Ethical systems: optional, belonging to particular groups or cultures.
The normative system: binding on all, and buildable only upon the human common ground.
This common ground is not drawn from private sources but from Existential Rights—rights rationally derived from the basic functions of human existence, demonstrable in a shared Takamolya scientific language. (See also: From Existential Rights to System Design).
Conclusion
The crisis of normative justice reveals that the world does not need more particular models but rather a universal logic capable of transforming these models into a shared system. It is legitimate for any community to adopt a private source, but generalization cannot be achieved through domination or exclusion. It must come through presentation in a rational language testable by all.
In this context, the Takamolya Scientific Method emerges as the tool of our era to build a new normative system, founded on existential rights and translated into just civil systems. It is a call to establish a “shared language of justice,” the only path to safeguard human dignity, away from the clash of domination and the loss of compass.
References
- Mahfouz, Jalal (2024). The Better Choice: The Takamolya Project (Critical Existentialism). Chapter 3.
- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
- Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.
- Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design.
- Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
- Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
