Now, I believe we were talking about moral values, were we not? As in, the principles pertaining to right and wrong conduct. And we considered leaving this discussion for the great thinkers, and then I said poppycock; but then a coffee was in order, and then there was work - always, work - and so here we are, again.
As I could easily spend the remainder of November on this topic - and perhaps I will - let me start with something that Derrida said about ethics. Derrida said, and I am paraphrasing here, that simply following an accepted norm or behavior is not ethical. That is to say, if society has already established right and wrong behavior, and we are simply abiding by it, ethics are not required. Ethics are necessary when you don't know what to do in a situation, when there are no clear guidelines for behavior, when you have to make a decision. This, he said, is when ethics come into play, when you have to invent the rule:
"That's where responsibility starts, when I don't know what to do. If I knew what to do, well, I would apply the rule... Ethics start when you don't know what to do, when there is a gap between knowledge and action, and you have to take responsibility for inventing the new rule which doesn't exist... This is very dangerous and you have no guarantee. An ethics with guarantees is not an ethics. If you have an ethics with some insurance, and you know that if you are wrong the insurance will pay, it isn't ethics. Ethics is dangerous." (Derrida, 2001)
Dangerous.
My question is this: what drives us to be concerned about right and wrong in the first place? Is it the need to reduce or minimize the natural tensions which result from our everyday interactions with each other, with society? I keep going back to the double-bind. I keep going back to cognitive dissonance. I keep going back to Self and Others.
But these are discussions for another day.



