for themselves, as roles as classic and as coherent as those of the ex-
ecutive, legislative, and judicial branches. Let us now move to the
fourth calling that we have chosen to reinterpret, that of moralist (Fig-
ure 4.3).
The old split between facts and values obliged moralists, as we saw
in Chapter 3, to flee back toward the foundations or limit themselves
to procedures, or else to imitate in vain the type of certitude that natu-
ralism seemed to offer.^43 Detached from facts in all their details, mor-
alists could be of no use: once they have been brought back to the right
path, as it were, and obliged to participate in the common tasks, their
qualifications become indispensable again. We can define morality as
uncertaintyabout the proper relation between means and ends, ex-
tending Kant’s famous definition of the obligation “not to treat human
beings simply as means but always also as ends”—provided that weex-
tend it to nonhumans as well,something that Kantianism, in a typically
modernist move, specifically wanted to avoid.^44 Ecological crises, as
we have interpreted them, present themselves asgeneralized revolts of
SKILLS FOR THE COLLECTIVE
155Scenarization of the totality6Perplexity ConsultationInstitution Hierarchy124 3UPPER HOUSELOWER HOUSESkill (for example,
of economists)Skill (for example,
of moralists)5 Separation of
powersFigure 4.3 Each of the callings (here, those of the moralists and economists) contrib-
utes equally to the six functions of the collective.