Except in a most rudimentary sense which might apply to animals bereft of language, thinking and intentions require the possession of a language. It is here that one might opt for saying that the diety is a mystery to circumvent multiplying metaphysical paradoxes. That is decidely NOT my view. I hold that there are no 'ideal observers' to spare us, even in theory, from the trauma of ethical uncertainty. As W reminds us in a quite different context, but illuminating here as well, there are not rules for our use of language that are so 'precise' that they prohibit all doubt in all situations.
Ethical concepts have a grammar unique to themselves.
W. enjoins us to not think, not to repose in our ivory tower fancies, but rather to look, look at that diversity, a diversity which is overlooked by our theorizing. I m not quite sure I agree with this. I am not a Neoplatonist, but I will suggest Plato s metaphysical dualism as an illustration. Neither did Plato believe that we discover, strictly speaking, anything new in ethics. One may supposedly 'discover' ethical truths in Plato's sense, because on that view the answer 'floats fully deteminate in some ethereal realm'.