Contemporary scholars often separate the instrumental rationality embodied in biosemiotic systems from practical rationality, adopting deontological and virtue-ethical frameworks as the normative basis for biosemiotic ethics. However, strong accountability models fail to recognize the ethical dimensions of non-human semiotic processes, while weak accountability models struggle to address genuine ecological responsibility and meaning generation. Without confronting the inherited techno-linguistic…
Read moreContemporary scholars often separate the instrumental rationality embodied in biosemiotic systems from practical rationality, adopting deontological and virtue-ethical frameworks as the normative basis for biosemiotic ethics. However, strong accountability models fail to recognize the ethical dimensions of non-human semiotic processes, while weak accountability models struggle to address genuine ecological responsibility and meaning generation. Without confronting the inherited techno-linguistic hegemonies embedded in human history, it is difficult to envision a shared good life oriented toward living beings. This article contends that a utilitarian semiotics—defined by the genuine circulation of meaning and grounded in the material and institutional substrates of semiotic regulation—ought to serve as a central framework for moral evaluation. Its framework does not presuppose consciousness or intention, but is manifested in the historical adaptability of semiotic behavior, the physiological basis of perceptual conflicts, and the multi-level response-feedback mechanisms among living systems.