ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses a restricted version of the Re-Gap Principle and its significance in the normative autonomy debate. The previous chapter revealed that the Re-Gap Principle captures a substantial sense of modal autonomy that depends on a distinctive feature of normativity: normative states do not exactly exclude descriptive states. So, the question arises whether the whole normative domain possesses this feature. The chapter considers conceptual distinctions in normative theorizing that might cast doubts on such a claim. It is argued that a restriction of the Re-Gap Principle that is limited to authoritative normativity can do justice to key elements of the pre-theoretical idea of normative autonomy. To that end, the notion of authoritative normativity is introduced and it is argued that it concerns what is normatively most relevant (Sections ‘What to Do: Authoritative Normativity’ and ‘A Non-Arbitrary Gap’). The relevance-based approach is defended against recent criticism of authoritative normativity (Section ‘Work for a Theory of Authoritative Normativity’). A close examination of the modal profile of authoritative normativity shows that the outlined restricted autonomy thesis is promising. According to the restricted Re-Gap Principle, no descriptive propositions entail an authoritatively normatively relevant proposition (Section ‘Normative Authority and Its Modal Profile’).
