Thanks Lije and Kanad.
While the moral philosophy of Nietzsche and Rand will remain
legitimate objects of critique, an undeniably important contribution by both is their reminder of the need to acknowledge the influences of the powers that be, on what are thought of as moral standards of a society. The
powers that be maybe mighty aristocrats defining Nietzsche's
herrenmoral, or totalitarian commissars whose enforced morality is what Rand saw her literature and her characters' struggles as a rebellion against.
As a contemporary case in point, consider the question of what is considered acceptable language in public discourse. While
callous use of belittling language is increasingly being recognized as an instance of unexamined and abused privilege, the point that the definition of what constitutes acceptable language itself is unduly influenced by those in positions of
class-privilege has also been acknowledged, for instance,
recently by Ophelia Benson and earlier
more controversially by George Carlin (What is unfortunate here that while this promising starts out as a potentially useful critique of
euphemism as obfuscation, quickly degenerates into blatant
exhibitionism of ableism.). Either way, this is yet another illustration of the Nietzschean insight(and the Randian reminder) that in practice, any notion of acceptable behavior cannot be viewed in isolation of the preferences of the powers that be.
To the thesis that morality is objective like a Law of Nature, the Nietzschean view that morality is arbitrarily defined by might is an antithesis, and much effort in moral philosophy has been devoted to attempts at a synthesis to evolve a standard of morality that is
neither objective nor arbitrary.
[NOTE: (Very) Mild spoilers and oblique plot details maybe present below]
Staying with the Batman Trilogy, the first and last movie seem to, between them, constitute a critique of what maybe called the radicalisms of both the Right and the Left, enforced by plutocrats and commissars respectively. The Dark Knight Rises has been subject to the somewhat far-fetched
accusation that it criticizes the Occupy movement. This may simply be an instance of the
presentist fallacy, because events in the movie seem to parallel more closely the French Revolution than the Occupy movement, complete with a Bastille scene, copious Reign of Terror references and a Robespierre-like demagogue. Therein seems to be a reiteration of a historical warning against the excesses of the radicalism of the Left. A critique of unbridled free-market fundamentalism, a recognizable radicalism of the Right, which echoes
Michael Moore's criticism of Wall Street here, can be found in this
exchange between Earle and Lucius Fox in Batman Begins about restoring the initiative and influence to creators, innovators and developers rather than those who 'move money around'.
In the Indian context, historian Ramachandra Guha sees the
history of post-Independence India itself as one of assiduous attempts to avoid the twin perils of Right and Left wing radicalism and suggests that it is a
political dispensation free of both, that will respond best to the aspirations of nation as diverse as India (unlike, say
a more homogenous nation like China).
![[+]](http://nirmukta.net/images/collapse_collapsed.png.pagespeed.ce.5RZPmzb2DR.png)
3 users Like Lije's post
