ALL VALID CRITICISM OR IMPROVEMENT OF RULES OF CONDUCT MUST PROCEED WITHIN A GIVEN SYSTEM OF SUCH RULES
Criticism and improvement of rules of conduct can only happen within established systems of those rules. These systems are built on past experiences that we do not fully understand. Therefore, we cannot just create entirely new systems to improve them. Instead, we should evaluate specific rules based on how they fit into the existing structure of rules, which we accept as certain without questioning. This type of evaluation is called "immanent criticism." It focuses on the compatibility of rules rather than strict logical consistency, meaning the rules should work together to guide actions without causing conflict among those who follow them.
Conflicts often arise from the ranking of different rules, creating moral dilemmas when it’s unclear which rule should take precedence. Every system of rules involves some uncertainty regarding their importance. As societies change, these systems evolve through addressing unanswered moral questions. When evaluating a rule, we must measure it against accepted rules that shape society’s order.
Tradition plays a complex role—it can be both criticized and a standard for that criticism. While not all traditions are above reproach, any evaluation should occur within the context of that tradition. We cannot fundamentally redesign entire systems of rules; instead, we can adjust specific rules while accepting larger parts of the system as they are.
The effectiveness of any rule also depends on the rules followed by others. If one person adopts a new, considerate rule that reduces disappointments for others, it might gain acceptance and better integrate into the existing system than previous rules. This often relies on the shared understanding of expectations among individuals based on societal rules.
Moral relativism arises because rules are tied to specific societies, and changes to one rule depend on changes within the entire system. An absolute moral framework independent of social context does not exist. Our moral obligations come from living within a structured society where shared rules help maintain order, allowing individual identity beyond group affiliation. Aiming for a universal moral order enables continuous improvement of our system through ongoing criticism within the established framework.
Criticism and improvement of rules of conduct can only happen within established systems of those rules. These systems are built on past experiences that we do not fully understand. Therefore, we cannot just create entirely new systems to improve them. Instead, we should evaluate specific rules based on how they fit into the existing structure of rules, which we accept as certain without questioning. This type of evaluation is called "immanent criticism." It focuses on the compatibility of rules rather than strict logical consistency, meaning the rules should work together to guide actions without causing conflict among those who follow them.
Conflicts often arise from the ranking of different rules, creating moral dilemmas when it’s unclear which rule should take precedence. Every system of rules involves some uncertainty regarding their importance. As societies change, these systems evolve through addressing unanswered moral questions. When evaluating a rule, we must measure it against accepted rules that shape society’s order.
Tradition plays a complex role—it can be both criticized and a standard for that criticism. While not all traditions are above reproach, any evaluation should occur within the context of that tradition. We cannot fundamentally redesign entire systems of rules; instead, we can adjust specific rules while accepting larger parts of the system as they are.
The effectiveness of any rule also depends on the rules followed by others. If one person adopts a new, considerate rule that reduces disappointments for others, it might gain acceptance and better integrate into the existing system than previous rules. This often relies on the shared understanding of expectations among individuals based on societal rules.
Moral relativism arises because rules are tied to specific societies, and changes to one rule depend on changes within the entire system. An absolute moral framework independent of social context does not exist. Our moral obligations come from living within a structured society where shared rules help maintain order, allowing individual identity beyond group affiliation. Aiming for a universal moral order enables continuous improvement of our system through ongoing criticism within the established framework.