the focus of moral thinking is the indeterminacy
of human behaviour
you could say 'action' here - but I want to speak
specifically about that class of action that is
interpersonal - between people - in relation to others
- this is what I mean here by behaviour
also action - is something of a stripped down version -
of a more complex picture
behaviour here - not only entails action -
but it presupposes thought - and also
patterns of action which we would term - unconscious -
or just habitual - in short - the thought and act of
individuals - and I would say socially understood patterns of
action and thought -
I'm looking for a broad understanding here -
how to act in relation to the other?
what line of thought to take - what series of moves?
the thing is we need a way of focusing these issues -
otherwise - the questions yield no definitive answers -
or - we give up looking at variables - and just make the
decision to 'act for this reason and in this way' -
this kind of pragmatic resolution is either - ignorant -
or highly sophisticated -
but in either case it is not people's first choice of
understanding
what we do is ask the question - 'what is the right thing
to do?' - or some such variant -
the point of such a question is to resolve the issue
of procedure - to create a focus - that can accommodate
all variables
look - if it was just a simple case of understanding cause
and effect - no question
what we need to understand in such matters is the total
picture
now strictly speaking this can never happen
however contingency - actually demands it
'I don't know what to do here - what am I going to do?'
this translates to - what is the right thing to do?
the question - presupposes - the end of indeterminacy -
and this is the secret
it proposes an alternative to the reality of indeterminacy
now - religious people have explained this by positing
an alternative reality
we don't need to do this
we just need to know this about ourselves as functioning
conscious entities - we are set up to demand - require
definition
in interpersonal relations - such is the function of
moral thinking
the fact that no definition holds is reality's eternal
assertion -
in your face - so to speak
hey - keeps us on our toes
p.s.
therefore no great surprise that the language of morality
is not naturalistic - in the sense of physical science -
how could it be? - the whole point - of it is to defy - to
super-impose on the natural state of affairs
and if what I suggest is so - there is no question of
deducing an 'ought' from an 'is' this is not the game -
not what it's about
rather - it has more to do with establishing a model -
a framework in which to define the 'is'
an 'imposture' if you wish
one that goes beyond the simple - observation of the
external (science)
one that puts internal realities into the mix
and demands resolution - definitiveness
no simple matter - but one that has all the force of
necessity
