From Yesterday: ethics/language

Ethics emerges only through the organizational power of language. The ability to define an object as something other than itself through language allows for the creation of ethical norms. Only by the ability to include an object of ethical concern under a metaphorical or categorical sign in language does the ability to construct ethical categories make sense. The abuse of ethical norms and codes emerges in the indeterminate but dividing role of language. People use language decisively to include or exclude, but it has no definite value. The flexibility of language – its inability to totally describe something – allows for interpretative space which judges (juridical or social) use to exclude in accordance with their own interests. Language is intrinsically tied with language, but because of language’s flaws as a guideline-setting tool, which leaves space for interpretation-misapplication.

This is why animals have not been granted moral agency. The inability to communicate in the terms that define ethical agency excludes them from consideration as moral agents, which often means humans deny them ethical value. Perhaps the relative contingency and arbitrariness of animalistic action causes us to recoil? I don’t think this necessarily denies them the capacity to judge, but merely denies their capacity to communicate consistant/categorical norms for their actions.


Duncan