* * * * * * * * 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 } **************************************************************************