duminică, 27 mai 2012

Morality as a Grammar of Human Relations

We can view morality as a kind of grammar concerning human relations. Whereas the use of language could be represented as an expression of some general grammatical rules, the morality could appear as the structure according with which human relations are to be judged. Evidently, the speakers and the moral agents often do not know the rules or structure they follow. They are primarily influenced by those particular contexts in which they speak or act. The rules are known only when they add to their practice the judgmental practice. And nobody spontaneously dedicates to a judgmental practice if there is not something wrong in the current practice.

For moral cases, to admit something as wrong means to accept that it is already known what is good or bad according to a supposed moral structure.

Thus, the moral controversies derived from the feeling of something wrong occurring in human relations would be subsequent to an implicit admission of a previous established moral frame.

Contrary to philosophical endeavors to determine precisely the content of such a moral frame, because of its precedence to human relations, it seems to be simply the imprecise requirement of being together with others in the same frame. We might call it the same frame of life.

Though the moral conceptions, debates, or individual deliberations wish all to derive rules from that moral frame in order to help the well being of human relations, they easily betray it since it is privileged the judgmental practice, which is not only a matter of individual skill, but also a way of isolating the moral judge from the others that can be subjects to his or her pronouncements.

So, it is suitable to hold the idea that what is wrong in human relations can be overwhelmed rather by submitting to the spirit of the moral frame, not to the rules derived from it. Somewhat paradoxically, this would mean to be preoccupied only for living with others in spite or contrary to the judgmental practice of morality. In the support of this idea, we may recall that grammar never speaks the language of the community of speakers and leave out the living meanings of words.