One of the most peculiar characteristics of our juridical culture is the fact that, in general, when we question conduct, we are moralistic, legalistic or anthropocentric. That is, we usually resort to the concepts of dogma, rule or norm to think about Right. We condemn disobedience, punish the offense, or correct deviance. We believe in universal justice, territorial sovereignty or the superiority of reason. We mobilize the logic of divine grace, supreme source, or human dignity. We operate in the paradoxes of miracle, exception or instinct. We speak in terms of sin, crime or disease. We argue in the name of soul, order or health. We calculate our salvation, our safety or our hygiene. In short, we are oriented by the images of God, King and Man. And so, our transcendental subjection to the discourses of Justice, Law, and Human prevents us from thinking alternative ways to those we have traveled thus far. The objective of this thesis is to denaturalize the theocratic, imperialist and colonialist foundations of our juridical metaphysics. The purpose is to suggest another regime of conceptuality to problematize conduct. The challenge is to contribute to a future differential theory of right.