Moral Inclusion

I saw a reference to “moral inclusion,” but it was vague enough that I am free to see where such might lead. Usually, I would investigate an intriguing phrase before riffing on it. In this case, I’m presuming to be in a pretest phase, to be followed by further inquiry and another test to see how solidly it has lodged in my vocabulary and behavior.

Generally, I am averse to morals of any kind – they tend toward particulars of social control that reveal a point of social stuckness only dislodgeable by an earthquake called a revolution. Morals are aphorisms, well-phrased nuggets that pose as a cosmic or final answer, stopping further inquiry. Without regard to contextual circumstances, morals attempt to set out eternally valid limits within human relationships. By the time a moral is elucidated, it has carved out a huge chunk of life and set it aside from further consideration. Morals are generally exclusive.

When viewed through the above lens, “moral inclusion” approaches a paradox or oxymoron. These techniques have the value of calling attention to a tension that cannot be quickly resolved by an answer but calls for a series of responses.

I currently view “moral inclusion” as a way to set one moral code alongside a different moral code to see where such a conversation might go. It would seem to have some connection with the creative silence of a Religious Society of Friends meeting awaiting a resolution of the fallacy of an excluded middle or a clarification that the current circumstance is better resolved with one or the other habitual construction.

“Moral inclusion” seems to invite in more than is avoided by a system of morality. “Moral inclusion” might be considered an essential component in redeeming theological tautologies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.