"What is going on?" per Niebuhr is the first ethical question.
"We cannot know what is really going on" is the first observation of deconstruction, for signs merely slip and slide on the passing scene. Hermeneutics ends in free play.
It is notable to me that deconstruction followed existentialism and demolishes the possibility of ethics. We cannot even get as far as seeing what is going on in Occupied France, so how can we be responsible for our being stooges? Don't blame Paul de Man, he did not know what was going on. So his collaboration, however muted, was not an ethical lapse. He did not know; he could not know. Blindness and Insight, or what Sarte called, "bad faith," or "false consciousness."
We are no better. It is only worth diagnosing de Man because what he suffered from was what Camus called The Plague, and we ourselves are in the midst of a new epidemic. The symptoms are blind eyes, shaky hands, and a tongue that palters with ever more conspicuous evils.