Abstract

This paper proposes "Resonance Ethics" as a structurally grounded normative ethical framework derived from Judgemental Philosophy (JP). It challenges the Kantian assumption that ethical judgement can be universally justified through the formalizability of maxims, arguing instead that such universality misinterprets the underlying structure of meaning attribution. In contrast, Resonance Ethics asserts that the ethical legitimacy of a judgement arises not from its abstract generalizability, but from its resonance eligibility—that is, the structural capacity of a subject to receive, process, and meaningfully attribute a judgement within their lived configuration of affectivity, constructivity (C1), and coherence (C2). This reorientation fundamentally redefines what makes a judgement “justifiable,” situating ethical responsibility not in the abstraction of the will, but in the possibility of structurally grounded meaning return. The paper outlines the architecture of Resonance Eligibility, critiques Kantian deontology as a misapplication of resonance logic, and offers a structural reconstruction of normative ethics grounded in the subject’s attributional capacity. It further explores implications for medical ethics, AI, and social coercion, positioning Resonance Ethics as a framework capable of addressing when judgement is possible, premature, coercive, or must be ethically suspended.