{"id":"plural-normative-worlds","title":"Normative relations beyond a single human–AI axis","regions":["normative-change"],"question":"How should differently situated intelligent systems negotiate incompatible norms when no single interaction type exhausts the problem?","formulation":"The problem includes AI–AI interactions and hypothetical nonhuman interlocutors. It asks whether a norm fitted to one historical human setting can be treated as universally sufficient.","representations":[{"name":"A policy evaluated from one constituency","affords":"Makes commitments and responsibilities visible.","loses":"Can neglect other affected systems.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"A field of partly incompatible normative perspectives","affords":"Retains the disagreement instead of silently averaging it.","loses":"Does not itself provide a decision rule for urgent action.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Widening the field of moral consideration does not determine how concrete competing claims should be adjudicated.","challenge":"What can be negotiated, and what would make a refusal to negotiate justified?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-plural-normative-worlds"],"next_move":{"text":"Construct paired cases with the same material stakes but different affected constituencies; compare explanations without forcing a common score.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["How should differently situated intelligent systems negotiate incompatible norms when no single interaction type exhausts the problem?","What can be negotiated, and what would make a refusal to negotiate justified?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"47118784f69d026da0a2a13836ca9c6d255bf4d7333a60ced17ee5b6420f5f4d"}