Abstract

Normative powers are often assumed or defined to be abilities to change requirements by one's say so. Promise and command generate duties (and so requirement), consent waives them. I argue that alongside such deontic powers, we enjoy a suite of non-deontic powers: abilities to shape non-requiring interpersonal norms by our say so. I call consent's non-deontic analogue “allowance.” Suppose that we are meeting and we explicitly agreed to talk for an hour; but I see that the day is really getting away from you; it would be helpful to you to end early. That situation can be such that carrying on the meeting is permissible but still interpersonally defective—it's rude, imposing, graceless, etc. You can change that by your say so; you could, for instance, tell me “don't worry about it! we have the full hour.” Your say so is not deontic consent as it did not change what was permissible; but it did make a normative difference, rendering my carrying on no longer graceless or rude. I defend a set of four atomic non-deontic powers that I call “allowance,” “assurance” (like promise), “pressure” (like command), and “withdrawal” (like revocation). I also defend the existence of more complex molecular powers, most importantly the power exercised in telling another “I love you.” In addition to an argument from cases, I make a bigger picture, theoretical argument: we can shape non-deontic norms by (re)shaping our relationships with others; if we can shape non-deontic norms indirectly in that way, then we can do so directly by our say so. The upshot is a theory of ubiquitous, understudied normative phenomena and a picture on which the deontic and non-deontic dimensions of interpersonal life are continuous.