💾 Archived View for clemat.is › saccophore › library › ezines › textfiles › ezines › ANADA › anada02… captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
* * * * * * * *
A A N N A A D D A A
A A N N N A A D D A A
A A N N N A A D D A A
A *** A N N A *** A D D A *** A
A A N N A A D D A A
A ****************************** A
A "Addendum to Moral Relativism aNAda #22 A
A for the Postmodern Era" A
A by Uberfizzgig 03/03/00 A
A A
********************************************************************
Moral Relativism is an essential postulate in the post-modern
knowledge paradigm. The concept of the Overman, who is able to determine
good and bad through rational thought and empathic feeling dismisses the
pre-modern reliance on God or Natural Law to dictate correct moral conduct.
There is no objective Good or Evil; rather, each individual is empowered to
make judgments based on his or her own understanding of any given situation
in a particular environment.
Now, assuming that there is no objective standard, any moral code of
conduct based at the individual level is insufficient for maintaining a
cohesive society. Those of extreme positions would adversely affect the
population, resulting in faction and probably death. Currently this is kept
in check by the law, which is supposedly enforced evenly across society.
The law, however, being based on morality, has no legitimacy if the moral
beliefs or tenets thereof differ from individual to individual to any
significant degree. Thus, there is no commonality among individuals from
which society can survive. Therefore, it is a mistake to set the individual
as the seat of supreme moral authority. At a minimum, the society itself
(as small or large as it might be, and in whatever form) must be the base
unit from which any truly moral principle can be made manifest. With
societies as the base unit of analysis, Moral Relativism accepts differing
moral systems between groups, while simultaneously necessitating a moral
standard within each. What is moral is not religious nor is it invented by
each person seperately; instead what is moral should be defined through
social consensus.
This argument is of course unnecessary if one of the following is
true:
1) An objective-divine morality exists either handed down by God, or
innately known by the soul, etc.
2) An objective-biological morality exists written into our genetic
code that pushes us as a species to commit certain actions while
shunning others.
3) A relative-biological morality exists where genes that cause us to
commit or avoid certain actions vary from person to person.
The fourth possibility, that a relative-divine morality exists, does
not discount the argument, but expands it to include those divine agents
into the society of moral actors.
{**************************************************************************}
{ (c)2000 aNAda e'zine * * aNAda022 * by Uberfizzgig }
**************************************************************************