Some preliminary definitions of meta-ethical terms

amoralism - 1. a mode of thought or behavior that disregards all moral concepts, principles, or values. 2. a denial of the existence of morality. 3. an indifference to, or disregard of, moral principles or norms

meta-ethics - 1. the study of the origin, nature, and meaning of moral judgments, attitudes, properties, and values. 2. the study of the methods, language, and modes of reasoning that are employed in ethics

moral absolutism - the theory that there are absolute moral truths that are not relative to the individual moral agent or the sociocultural context in which moral judgments are made

moral anti-realism (or irrealism) - the theory that moral properties or values do not exist independently of our perceptions of them

moral cognitivism - 1. the theory that there are moral facts, and that moral statements express propositions (which can be shown to be true or false). 2. the theory that moral judgments are cognitive evaluations of facts, and that they have the same cognitive status as beliefs. 3. the theory that moral judgments are beliefs that have propositional content.
      Terry Horgan and Mark Timmons (2000) explain that moral cognitivism may be descriptivist or non-descriptivist, insofar as there may or may not be moral evaluative beliefs that are reducible to, or a species of, moral descriptive beliefs.¹

      Alfred Mele (1996) explains that moral cognitivism may also be internalist or externalist with regard to its analysis of moral motivation (depending on whether it regards an individual's own moral judgments as necessarily or only contingently motivating him/her to perform a particular action).² 

moral coherentism - the theory that moral judgments are justified insofar as they cohere with other moral judgments that are held to justified

moral constructivism - the theory that moral truths are (psychologically, rationally, or socially) constructed

moral contextualism - the theory that moral truths are context-sensitive, and that the validity of moral judgments depends on the context in which they are made

moral descriptivism - the theory that moral judgments describe facts

moral discourse - language that occurs within a specific (situational, sociocultural, or historical) context, and that concerns moral perceptions, feelings, emotions, concepts, attitudes, judgments, or values

moral emotivism - the theory that moral judgments do not express propositions, and that they instead express emotions or feelings

moral epistemic foundationalism - the theory that there are justified moral beliefs or judgments that are basic and foundational elements of moral knowledge, insofar as they do not have to be inferred from, or justified by, other justified moral beliefs or judgments. Epistemic foundationalism is therefore a solution to the problem of infinite regress in epistemic justification (the problem of an infinite number of inferences being required to justify any belief or judgment, unless there are some beliefs or judgments that are self-evidently justified and that do not require inferential justification).

moral epistemic reliabilism - the theory that a moral judgment is epistemically justified if the method by which the judgment was made is epistemically reliable.

moral epistemology - the study of the origin, nature, and limits of moral knowledge. Various approaches to moral epistemology (including intuitionism, coherentism, constructivism, and reliabilism) may be taken in order to explain how moral knowledge is possible.

moral error theory - 1. the theory that all moral beliefs are false, because they ascribe moral properties to things that have no moral properties.³ 2. the theory that all moral beliefs are false, because there are no moral facts or properties that could enable them to be true.⁴ Moral error theory may be compatible with moral subjectivism and moral fictionalism. It may also be compatible with moral anti-realism, but it may not be compatible with the epistemological claim made by moral non-cognitivism that moral statements cannot be shown to be true or false.

moral expressivism - the theory that moral judgments do not express propositions, and that they are instead expressions of feelings or emotions

moral externalism (or motivational externalism) - the theory that the moral motivation for an individual's actions is (or may be) provided by factors other than his/her own moral reasoning, attitudes, and judgments.

moral fictionalism - the theory that moral properties are not literally present in things, and that they are merely fictions created for the sake of convenience or expediency

moral functionalism - as described by Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit (1995), a theory of moral content according to which the evaluative content of moral judgments supervenes upon their descriptive content and thus functions to provide the motivation for moral action.⁵

moral generalism - the theory that there are general moral principles that can be used to guide moral conduct in particular situations

moral identity - the aspect of a person's social identity that is defined by his/her moral perceptions, feelings, reasoning, emotions, attitudes, and behavior 

moral imagination - the ability to imagine alternative moral actions, principles, and values, and to consequently engage with, and have a fuller conception of, the moral capacities of the individual, group, or society

moral internalism (or motivational internalism) - the theory that the moral motivation for an individual's actions is provided by his/her own moral reasoning, attitudes, and judgments. The theory may have strong and weak forms, depending on whether an individual's own moral reasoning, attitudes, and judgments are seen as determining or merely contributing to his/her actions. 

moral intuitionism - the theory that some justified moral judgments can be made intuitively, without having to be justified by other judgments. Moral intuitionism may be a kind of foundationalism, insofar as intuitively-made justified judgments may be considered to be foundational for other judgments.⁶

moral language - 1. the language of morality. 2. language that employs moral concepts, terms, and arguments. 3. language that has moral meaning, aims, and content. 4. language that presupposes (or advocates for) a particular set of moral values or norms

moral naturalism  - the theory that there are moral facts or properties in the natural world (or that moral properties are determined by natural properties)⁷

moral nihilism - 1. rejection of any concept of morality. 2. rejection of any mode of moral judgment. 3. denial of the existence of any objective moral truths, values, properties, or facts

moral non-cognitivism - 1. the theory that there are no moral facts, and that moral statements therefore do not express propositions.⁸ 2. the theory that moral judgments do not have the same cognitive status as beliefs, because there are no moral facts about which moral judgments can be made. Moral non-cognitivism may be a kind of non-objectivism.

moral non-descriptivism -  the theory that moral judgments do not describe facts

moral non-naturalism - the theory that there are no moral facts or properties in the natural world 

moral non-objectivism - the theory that there are no objective moral truths or facts

moral normativity - 1. the ability or tendency of something to be morally normative. 2. the ability or tendency of something to establish a moral norm or standard of behavior

moral objectivism - the theory that there are objective moral truths, properties, or values

moral particularism - the theory that there are no general moral principles that can be used to guide moral conduct in particular situations

moral philosophy - 1. the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of morality, and that explores the nature of right and wrong. 2. the branch of philosophy that investigates the origin and nature of moral reasoning, principles, values, and conduct. 3. the branch of philosophy that examines the applications of moral norms to human behavior. 

moral prescriptivism - the theory that moral judgments have prescriptive rather than descriptive content

moral projectivism - the projection of moral properties, attitudes, or values onto persons or things

moral psychology - the study of mental states and processes as they relate to moral reasoning, judgment, and conduct. Moral psychology may include the study of moral identity, moral development, moral motivation, and the neuroscience of cognition as it relates to moral thinking, attitudes, and behavior.

moral quasi-realism - as described by Simon Blackburn (1993), the theory that moral judgments do not express propositions, and that they merely express or project feelings (or attitudes) as if the latter were about actual facts. Quasi-realism is compatible with non-cognitivism, expressivism, projectivism, and anti-realism.⁹

moral queerness - a property described by J.L. Mackie (1977), who argues that there are no objective moral facts or values, and that if there were, they would be facts or values of a very strange and queer sort, unlike anything else in the universe. They would require some special faculty of intuition or perception, unlike any other kind of human perception, in order to be recognized.¹⁰ Mackie calls this argument against moral objectivism "the argument from queerness."

moral rationalism - the theory that the truth or falsehood of moral judgments can be determined by reason alone

moral realism - the theory that there are moral facts, attributes, or values that exist independently of our perception of them

moral relativism - the theory that there are no moral truths, properties, or values that are not relative to the judgment of the individual moral agent or to the sociocultural setting in which moral judgments are made

moral skepticism -  an attitude of doubt regarding the existence of any objective moral truths or facts, and doubt regarding the validity of any moral judgments that presuppose such truths or facts

moral subjectivism - the theory that all moral judgments, properties, or values are subjective. Moral subjectivism may be a kind of anti-realism or skepticism.¹¹

moral supervenience - a relation whereby moral properties supervene on non-moral properties, so that a given set of moral properties is found wherever a given set of non-moral properties is found. Moral anti-realists argue that moral realists have not provided any convincing argument for why moral supervenience should hold.¹²

moral understanding - 1. the understanding of moral principles and reasoning. 2. the ability to combine moral reasoning with other kinds of reasoning

moral vision - a particular moral viewpoint, perspective, or way of looking at the world

¹Terry Horgan and Mark Timmons, "Nondescriptivist Cognitivism: Framework for a New Metaethic" in Philosophical Papers 29 (2000), 121-53.

²Alfred R. Mele, "Internalist Moral Cognitivism and Listlessness," in Ethics, Vol. 106, No. 4 (1996), pp. 727-753.

³Bart Streumer, "Can We Believe the Error Theory?" (2012), forthcoming in the Journal of Philosophy.

⁴Richard Joyce, "Error theory," International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. by Hugh LaFollette (Wiley-Blackwell), 2013.

⁵Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit, "Moral Functionalism and Moral Motivation" in The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 178 (Jan., 1995), pp. 20-40.

⁶Mark van Roojen "Moral Intuitionism, Experiments and Skeptical Arguments" in Intuitions, edited by Anthony Booth and Darrell P. Rowbottom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

⁷Nick Zangwill, "Against Analytic Moral Functionalism" in Ratio XIII 3 September 2000, p. 275.

⁸Mark van Roojen, "Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2009), online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/.

⁹Simon Blackburn, Essays in Quasi-Realism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).

¹⁰J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977), p. 38.

¹¹Ibid., p. 18.

¹²Nick Zangwill, "Moral Supervenience," in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XX (1995), p. 240.

Conditions for having the Moral Right to Speak for Others

When does one have the moral right to speak for others? The substantiation and validation of this right may require the fulfillment of a number of conditions. Each condition, when fulfilled, may contribute toward the substantiation of this right, but it is only a conditional right (it is only conditionally capable of being substantiated and validated).

      The conditions for having the moral right to speak for others are each in their own way "necessary conditions," insofar as if it is possible for each of them to be fulfilled, they must be fulfilled. The question of what are the "sufficient conditions" that may, alone and of themselves, validate the moral right to speak for others is open to debate.

      It may be helpful to compose a tentative list of all the conditions that must be satisfied in order for the moral right to speak for others to be fully substantiated and validated. Thus, the moral right to speak for others may be said to exist only

• when those for whom one is speaking have voluntarily given their consent. In other words, one has the moral right to speak for others only if they have willingly given their informed consent, permission, or approval. If they are not in a position to give their voluntary and informed consent, then one's moral right to speak for them must be established on some other grounds, such as one's being their closest family relative, or one's being their legal representative, guardian, or trustee, or one's having been chosen to speak by their family members, guardians, or legal representatives, or one's being in a position of recognized and legitimate authority to speak for them. 

      It should be noted that those for whom one is speaking may either implicitly or explicitly agree that one may speak in their behalf. If their agreement or consent is only implicit, then one must assume the burden of proof if it becomes necessary to demonstrate that they have given their voluntary consent and that one has not unjustifiably taken upon oneself the task of speaking for them.

      The moral right to speak for others may also be said to exist only

• when those for whom one is speaking cannot speak for themselves
• when one can speak in such a way that the dignity, well-being, and self-fulfillment of those for whom one is speaking are enhanced, and are not diminished in any way
• when one has sufficient knowledge of, and familiarity with, the interests of those for whom one is speaking, and this knowledge and familiarity has been accepted and recognized by those for whom one is speaking
• when one is able to reliably and knowledgeably articulate the interests and concerns of those for whom one is speaking 
• when one is able to represent those for whom one is speaking in such a way that their interests, concerns, and well-being are served by one's being able to speak for them
• when one is in a better position, or is more qualified, than some other person to represent the interests of those for whom one is speaking
• when one is not adopting or speaking from a position of supposed superiority in relation to those for whom one is speaking
• when those for whom one is speaking are not diminished in their right and capacity to speak for themselves, whenever they choose to exercise this right 
• when those for whom one is speaking are aware of, are informed of, or can anticipate whatever one intends to say in their behalf, or when they have (implicitly or explicitly) given their consent to whatever one intends to say in their behalf
• when one's speaking for others does not jeopardize their safety, interests, and well-being
• when those for whom one is speaking are aware of, are informed of, and can anticipate, the possible risks or disadvantages of one's speaking for them
• when one's speaking for others is not a means of selfishly serving one's own interests
• when one does not have a potential conflict of interest that would call into question one's motivation for speaking for others, e.g. an interest in their not being able to speak for themselves or in their not being able to advance their own interests and well-being
• when one's speaking for others is not, in effect, benefiting one's own interests more than the interests of those for whom one is speaking
• when one is open and honest toward those for whom one is speaking, so that they are able to understand one's true motives for volunteering or consenting to speak for them
• when speaking for others does not violate their privacy or confidentiality, and
• when one is ready and willing to relinquish the right to speak for others as soon as they are able to speak for themselves.

      Given the number of conditions that must be satisfied in order to validate the moral right to speak for others, one must be very careful about assuming this responsibility. The moral right to speak for others is a very limited one (in scope and duration), given the number of conditions that must be satisfied in order to validate it.

      If one is speaking for a community of which one is a member, then one has the moral right to say that one speaks for oneself as a member of that community, but one does not have the moral right to say that one speaks for every member of that community, unless one has obtained the voluntary consent or approval of every member. 

      If one is speaking for a community of which one is not a member, then one's moral right to speak for that community may depend on a variety of factors, such as whether the members of that community are able to speak for themselves, whether one has been chosen by the members of that community to speak for them, whether one is in a position of recognized authority to speak for the members of that community, whether one has special expertise regarding (or familiarity with) the interests and concerns of that community, and other factors or conditions as described above. 

      The mere fact that one shares the interests and concerns of a community of which one is not a member does not give one the moral authority to speak for that community. One may have the moral authority to speak for a community of which one is or is not a member if one has been recognized by that community as a spokesperson or if one has been elected by that community to speak for (advocate for, or represent) their interests and concerns. However, the community for which one has been given the moral authority to speak still has the right to withdraw their consent for, or approval of, one's continuing to act as their representative or spokesperson.

      If one has chosen or elected oneself to be a spokesperson for a particular community, then the legitimacy of one's speaking for that community depends, in part, on whether one's speaking for its members actually promotes their interests and well-being, as judged by them. One may gain the moral authority to speak for the members of a community if one's speaking for them actually promotes their well-being and is approved by them. However, if one's speaking for them does not promote, or is detrimental to, their interests and well-being, and one is not accepted by them as a spokesperson, then one has no moral right to say that one is speaking for them.

      

The Art of Recitation

In what sense is recitation an art? Recitation is an art in the sense that it may be judged according to aesthetic criteria, such as beauty, sublimity, originality, imagination, spontaneity, eloquence, expressiveness, etc. It's also an art in the sense that it involves the practice of a craft, discipline, or skill that is artistic, as well as technical, in nature.

      Is it possible for the recitation of a text to be creative and flexible in its approach to the text, and yet remain faithful to all linguistic aspects of that text? Indeed, every act of recitation may, to some extent, involve an element of creative interpretation on the part of the performer. Faithfulness to the creativity of the text may require the recitation of the text to reflect that creativity.

      Can recitation of a text give the text new or added meaning? Oral recitation sometimes seems to bring new life to a written text, to reanimate it and make it more vital, and to bring it from the past into the present. Sometimes by hearing a text recited, we may hear that text in some way reinterpreted by the reader doing the recitation, and thus we may see how the reader's own experience of the text (as shaped by her experiences of other texts) may influence her interpretation. We may be exposed to new ways of reading, listening to, and interpreting that text, and we ourselves may subsequently read, listen to, and interpret that text differently.

      Other important questions regarding the nature and meaning of recitation include: Does the oral recitation of a written text somehow change the ontological status of that text? For example, does the recitation of a poem somehow change it from a written to an oral art form? (What about spoken word poetry? Is it an oral or written art form, or both?) Is a written text changed in its being when it is read aloud? To what extent does the ontological status of a particular text depend on the means by which that text is transmitted?

      Does the recitation of a sacred text change the ontological status of that text? Does the act of recitation change the ontological status of the truths that the text is purported to express? Or should the converse question be asked: is the ontological status of the truths that a sacred text is purported to express changed by the act of writing down or transcribing that text? For believers in God, the question is thus, "Is the spoken Word of God the same as the written Word of God?"

      The recitation of a text often seems to make us more open to listening and being more receptive to that text. The text may become a listening as well as reading experience in which we actively participate. In some cases (as, for example, with highly abstract or technical written texts), we may find it more difficult to be good listeners than to be good readers, while in other cases (as, for example, with some auditory texts, such as unidentifiable noises or environmental sounds) we may find it more difficult to be good "readers" than to be good listeners.

     The recitation of a written text by its author may enable the listener to have a new and fuller experience of the author (as a person, speaker, or writer). The listener may gain insight into the author's verbal and thematic strategies in the text by listening to the author's recitation of the text.

      How much of ordinary language consists of the recitation of thoughts by a given speaker or writer? If a given speaker or writer simply "says what's on her mind" and unburdens herself of whatever has been occupying her attention, isn't she, in a sense, merely reciting her thoughts and voicing her feelings? Perhaps, to express one's thoughts verbally is in some way to recite them to the listener or reader.

      Recitation may be performed with varying degrees of proficiency. Technical aspects of recitation (which may depend on the vocal qualities of the performer, her proficiency in reading aloud, her literacy, her understanding of the text, and her communicative competence) may therefore affect the listener's experience of the recited text. Relevant vocal qualities of the performer may include the pitch, volume, resonance, and range of her voice, and the tempo, intonation, articulation, phrasing, and dynamics of her delivery, all of which may affect the listener's attentiveness to, and participation in, the recitation. Nonvocal qualities of the performer such as her facial expressions, posture, and gestures may also affect the listener's experience of the recitation.

      Some texts may be easier to recite than others. Some may be more interesting, resonant, meaningful, and easier to listen to than others.

      Criteria for a praiseworthy recitation of a text may include the accuracy, fluency, and effectiveness of the recitation, as determined by its faithfulness to the words of the text, its precision, its resonance, its spontaneity, its expressive poignancy, and its dramatic power.

      The importance of oral recitation (and of oral versus written narrative) may vary according to the particular aesthetic, religious, or sociocultural tradition in which it occurs. Thus, varying degrees of emphasis may also be placed on the ability to properly recite a text, depending on the aesthetic, religious, or sociocultural setting.

      Modes of recitation include speaking (reading aloud), singing, recitative (or speech-like singing), and chanting. Each of these modes may vary in the degree to which they are rote (mechanical) or improvised.

      Recitation is a kind of performance, and thus we are also confronted by the question of whether the interpretation of a spoken or written text involves a kind of performance on the part of the listener or reader. Just as the reading of a text may be performed silently or aloud, the interpretation of a text may be performed silently or aloud.

      Some machines (such as computers and telephones) may be able to read written text (including text messages) aloud, and thus their repetitive recitation of a particular text may have a uniformity that's not possible with human recitation. Unless the recitation of a particular text by a computer or mobile device is programmed to vary in some way with each recitation, each recitation may be exactly the same as those preceding it. Repetitive human recitation of a particular text, on the other hand, will inevitably exhibit some variation (even if only slight) from one recitation to another.

Text Linguistics - A Reading List

Abbott, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Barthes, Roland. S/Z: An Essay. Translated by Richard Miller. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1974.

Barthes, Roland. Image, Music, Text. Translated by Stephen Heath. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977.

Beaugrande, Robert de. Text, Discourse, and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Texts. London: Longman Publishing Group, 1980.

Beaugrande, Robert de and Dressler, Wolfgang. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman Publishing Group, 1981.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Foucault, Michel. "What is an Author?" in Twentieth Century Literary Theory. Edited by Vassilis Lambropoulos and David Neal Miller. Albany: State University Press of New York, 1987.

Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.

Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Riffaterre, Michael. Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.

Silverman, Jonathan and Rader, Dean. The World is a Text: Writing, Reading and Thinking about Visual and Popular Culture. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008.

Titscher, Stefan et al. Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage: 2000.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Applications of Text Theory to Moral Philosophy

Text theory may be relevant to moral philosophy insofar as moral acts may be regarded as texts to be read or interpreted. The textuality of moral acts may be defined by their structural cohesion and coherence,¹ by their ability to be "read" or interpreted, and by their relations to other texts (their intertextuality or transtextuality). 

      The textuality of moral acts may have syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic dimensions. The syntactic dimension(s) of a moral act may be based on its "grammaticality" (its conformity to the formation rules specified by the moral "language"). The semantic dimension(s) of a moral act may be based on its meaningfulness or capacity to signify perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, as determined by its conformity to specified rules of meaning and signification. The pragmatic dimension(s) of a moral act may be based on its usefulness, adaptability, instrumentality, or functionality, as determined by the purposes and functions for which it is used, and by the moral (sociocultural, linguistic, or discursive) context in which it occurs.

      Moral acts may belong to lexical and semantic fields (or domains) that provide linguistic, discursive, and situational contexts for their interpretation. The meaning of moral acts may be determined not only by their form and content, but also by their moral (sociocultural, historical, and psychological) contexts and subtexts. 

      The meaning or signification of moral acts may be determined not only by the intentions of their "author(s)," but also by their semantic content, their situational and interpretive context(s), and the accompanying interpretive process in which the reader(s) or audience participate(s). The "readers" or interpreters of a moral act may include all those individuals to whom the act is presented as a linguistic (sociocultural, psychological, or moral) text and all those individuals for whom the act is relevant. The authorial intentions behind or underlying a moral act may be part of the author's motivations for performing that act. 

      The interpretive or hermeneutic process may be influenced by the reader's preconceptions regarding the author's aims or intentions, although those preconceptions may in some cases be misleading. Accurate, well-placed, and well-founded preconceptions on the part of the reader may, in some cases, facilitate his/her understanding of the author's intentions, but inaccurate, misplaced, and baseless preconceptions may lead to his/her misunderstanding of those intentions.² 

      The intended meaning of a text may also be different from the actual meaning of that text, and the actual meaning of the text may depend on the temporal, sociocultural, and interpretive context.

      Textual analysis may include study of the rhetoric, stylistics, semantics, pragmatics, ideology, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics of a text (speech-act, linguistic sign, sign system, or mode of discourse). Textual analysis may also include study of the discursive strategies and communicative competence of a text, as well as study of the text's linguistic (discursive, sociocultural, or historical) context, and the text's relations to other texts.

      Any text may be subject to overreadings (assignments to the text of meanings that are not actually expressed or implied by the text), underreadings (instances of failure to recognize meanings that are actually expressed or implied by the text), and misreadings (misrepresentations of meanings that are actually expressed or implied by the text).³ 

      Moral acts as texts may be dialogic interactions⁴ between "authors" and "readers," and between texts and other texts (acts, events, sign systems, or fields of interpretation, insofar as they are also texts). The moral meaning of any particular act or text may always be further interpreted in light of the contribution to its meaning by other acts or texts. 

      A text may exhibit both an internal and external dialogism. It may engage in dialogue with itself, as well as with other texts.⁵ 

      The interpretation of moral acts may include examination of not only their actual meaning(s), but also their potential meaning(s). A single moral act may have multiple levels of actual and potential meaning. Interpretation of a moral act may thus entail study or clarification of the conditions that made that particular act possible.

      Since a moral act or text may always be further interpreted in light of other acts or texts, no interpretation can be called final or definitive. Hermeneutics as a process of textual understanding is never finalizable.⁶

      The relation between moral philosophy and text theory may be further illuminated by examining the relation between ethics and language. Just as there is a language of ethics, there is an ethics of language. Just as moral philosophy may illuminate text theory, text theory may illuminate moral philosophy. Moral understanding may be based on an ability to correctly "read" or interpret the meaning of moral intentions, principles, acts, etc. and their respective outcomes. Moral misunderstanding may similarly be based on an inability or failure to correctly "read" the meaning of moral intentions, principles, acts, etc.

      A given reader may read a text repeatedly, and yet read that text in a slightly different way each time she returns to it. The reader may experience the text as in some way changed (perhaps in the light of her own formative experiences in the interim) with each subsequent reading. The reader may herself be changed in some way by each subsequent reading of that text.

¹M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Cohesion in English (Hong Kong: Longman Group Ltd., 1976), p. 22.

²Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), p. 263.

³H. Porter Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 239.

⁴Mikhail Bakhtin, "Discourse in the Novel," in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, edited by Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), p. 279.

⁵Ibid. p. 282.

⁶Leslie A. Baxter, Voicing Relationships: A Dialogic Perspective (Los Angeles: Sage, 2011), p. 26.