Cognitive Dissonance in Ethics and Moral Relativism

“عار. ها هو فرس السباق يضرب بحوافره الأرض ويصهل، متشوق للسباق، مُحب للفارس الذي اعتاد امتطاءه، ولكن ياللعار! لا يستطيع ركوب الفرس، إنه مُتعب. كذا هو المُفكر المتعب أمام فلسفته” Nietzsche, F. W.,; Kennedy, J. M. (2007). The dawn of day. Dover Publications. .

For a background, I posted this on account recently:

So:

• \(Y\) acknowledges \(\varphi(M) = -1\), thus experiencing \(\lambda = \text{shame}\).
• \(Z\) does not acknowledge \(\varphi(M) = -1\), thus devoid of \(\lambda\).

Also let:

• \(\Lambda(Y) = \lambda\) represent shame,
• \(\Lambda(Z) = 0\) represent no shame,

So we have: \(\Lambda(Y) = \lambda \quad \text{iff} \quad \varphi(M) = -1\) and \(\Lambda(Z) = 0 \quad \text{iff} \quad \varphi'(M) \neq -1\)

(for the sake of simplicity I will use male pronouns for Z and Y)

Here’s my own view. \(Y\) is a self-flagellating ascetic, and \(Z\) is liberated: person \(Y\), is ensnared within a cruel dichotomy. He is consciously aware of the moral infraction he commits and that his actions are steeped in unethical mire, inducing a wretched cycle of shame. Knowing full well the chains that bind him, he lacks the will to snap these links. He lives, therefore, in antagonizing dissonance—a sad harmony of recognition and helplessness. Instead of succumbing to external judgment, \(Z\) uses \(\varphi'\), an individualized ethical model based on personal philosophy and existential authenticity.

\(Z\) is crafting and adhering to self-determined values rather than the prescribed dictates of the herd. This is not mere ignorance or blissful disconnection; it is active revaluation (Umwertung aller Werte)— the reevaluation of all values, a courageous endeavor to reconstruct the moral landscape based on self-sovereignty. While \(Y\) grapples with \(\lambda\)—a product of subjugation to the external ethical model—\(Z\) lives in radical freedom. His ethical stance, albeit perceived as transgressive by \(\varphi\), is an authentic expression of his will to power. Nietzsche placed supreme value on the creation of one’s own values, an act requiring immense courage and intellectual vigor.

\(Y\)’s struggle, though seemingly noble, is secondary to the transformative potency of \(Z\)’s path. What \(Z\)’s lifestyle looks to me would be:

• Creation of new values by not acknowledging \(\varphi(M) = -1\), \(Z\) challenges the established norms and creates new values indicative of his inner autonomy;
• More importantly, authenticity, \(Z\)’s behavior aligns with his intrinsic nature

Will to power. \(Z\)’s rejection of \(\lambda\) and the traditional moral construct is a testament to his will to power. \(Z\) does not agree to live in shame, and hopefully he is rational, thus his view of what \(\varphi'\) is like is much more consistent which means that he does not agree to what goes out of that model. We can not infer \(Z\) to hedonism, because, unless being irrational, the model \(\varphi'\) will never be fit for all what he considers as a pleasure. As of writing that, I think there’s an issue with that argument, as it depends on Z’s rationality and it falls apart without it. I might have to update that later