Moral language feels urgent, authoritative, and necessary. It signals care. It promises clarity in a complex world. Yet, when it dominates a system, it often destroys the very conditions that make ethical reflection possible.
This is why revisability—our ethical baseline—is endangered by moralisation.
1. Moral language collapses description into verdict
When we moralise, we stop describing and start judging.
-
Complexity → culpability
-
Constraint → personal failure
-
Misalignment → wrongdoing
Once judgment replaces description, revisability is no longer possible without appearing to retreat ethically. The system begins to defend itself rather than examine itself.
2. Moralisation fixes positions, freezes relations
Revisability depends on the ability to reconfigure relations, not simply to redistribute outcomes.
Moral language stabilises:
-
roles (victim, perpetrator, ally, enemy),
-
identities,
-
categories of acceptable speech or action.
Movement is then read as disloyalty, error, or moral weakness. Constraint is no longer negotiable.
3. Moral urgency collapses temporal depth
Revisability requires time:
-
to test constraints,
-
to observe consequences,
-
to allow partial perspectives to accumulate.
Moral language demands immediacy:
-
act now,
-
choose now,
-
condemn now.
Urgency short-circuits learning. The faster the moral tempo, the shallower the system’s capacity to revise itself.
4. Moral language converts coordination into loyalty
A field governed by moral rhetoric asks:
Whose side are you on?
Dissent becomes evidence of disloyalty, not information. Revisability vanishes.
5. Moral language conceals structure
Once a system interprets everything in moral terms, it becomes opaque to itself.
-
Harm is moralised → causes are obscured
-
Power is moralised → structure is hidden
-
Constraint is moralised → revision is foreclosed
The more righteous the system feels, the less intelligible it actually is.
6. The paradox
-
It converts deviation into sin rather than signal.
-
It converts disagreement into disloyalty rather than information.
-
It converts inquiry into confession.
7. The alternative is structural, not amoral
Rejecting moralisation is not the same as rejecting care. It is a shift in focus:
-
From verdict → diagnostic
-
From loyalty → intelligibility
-
From blame → reconfiguration
Ethical life, properly understood, is about keeping the system capable of revising the constraints that produce harm, not punishing those who fail within them.
8. One-sentence compression
Moral language feels ethical because it signals care; it becomes unethical when it prevents the system from revising the conditions that generate harm.
9. Looking ahead
Having clarified why moralisation accelerates unrevisability, the next step is to see how power operates through constraint, often without malice or intent—another hidden mechanism shaping whether revisability is possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment