Ethics is almost universally presented as a matter of values. To be ethical, on this view, is to hold the right values, promote the good ones, balance them appropriately, or resolve conflicts between them. Moral disagreement is therefore framed as disagreement about what ought to be valued.
This framing is not merely incomplete. It is structurally misleading.
Ethics is not, in the first instance, about values at all.
Why the value-first picture feels obvious
The identification of ethics with values feels natural for understandable reasons.
Most ethical theories therefore begin where articulation is easiest, mistaking availability to discourse for ontological priority. What is lost in this move is the phenomenon ethics is meant to explain in the first place: the felt pressure to act, respond, repair, or refrain before any value has been invoked.
Values arrive late.
The pre-valuative character of ethical pressure
Consider the following experiences:
-
You interrupt someone and immediately sense the need to stop.
-
You realise your action has destabilised a shared activity.
-
You notice that your silence now places strain on an interaction.
-
You recognise that continuing as you were will impose costs on others.
In none of these moments does a value first appear and then motivate action. There is no inner consultation with principles. What appears instead is relational pressure — the same pressure analysed in the normativity series.
Ethical force is encountered before evaluation. Values may later be used to justify, explain, or codify responses to that pressure, but they do not generate it.
Values as stabilisers, not sources
This leads to a crucial reorientation.
When patterns of relational pressure recur, communities develop symbolic means of naming, compressing, and transmitting responses to them. These symbolic compressions are what we call values.
Values:
-
make expectations portable,
-
allow coordination at scale,
-
reduce the cognitive load of continual re-negotiation.
They are powerful technologies. But they are technologies of management, not origination.
To mistake values for the source of ethics is like mistaking traffic laws for the source of traffic.
Why value conflict is not the heart of ethics
Once ethics is framed as value balancing, moral life is cast as a problem of optimisation: which values should prevail in this case? Ethical difficulty becomes a matter of calculation or prioritisation.
But many ethical situations are difficult precisely because values are silent, conflicting, or beside the point.
What is felt instead is exposure:
-
exposure to others’ vulnerability,
-
exposure to shared dependence,
-
exposure to the consequences of one’s participation.
These are not value problems. They are relational problems.
Ethics as disciplined navigation, not evaluation
On the view being developed here, ethics concerns how agents navigate relational pressure under conditions of interdependence.
The ethical question is not:
What should I value?
It is:
How must I now respond, given the constraints my participation has made visible?
Values may help answer this question. They may also obscure it.
Ethics begins not with what is good, but with what is at stake.
The danger of moralising ethics
Treating ethics as value-driven has a further cost: it moralises breakdown.
When values are taken as primary, ethical failure is redescribed as moral deficiency — a failure of commitment, character, or belief. This encourages blame, policing, and exclusion, often precisely where repair is needed.
By contrast, if ethics is grounded in relational pressure, ethical failure is first understood as misalignment — something to be addressed, repaired, or sometimes acknowledged as irreparable, but not immediately moralised.
This shift does not weaken ethical seriousness. It strengthens it by making responsibility intelligible without cruelty.
Clearing the ground for the series
The task of this post has been preparatory but decisive.
Once this is understood, ethics can be rethought without:
-
moral absolutism,
-
relativistic collapse,
-
or metaphysical individualism.
In the next post, we will examine agency — not as autonomy or free will, but as the capacity to navigate constraint within relational systems.
Only then can responsibility be addressed without myth.
No comments:
Post a Comment