Nothing we do can be defended absolutely and finally. But only by reference to somethings else that is not questioned
Wittgenstein CV 23
You can not lead people to what is good; you can only lead them to some place or other, which they may or may not then see as a valuable place to reach; since such ‘leading’ can reveal only the mundane facts of relative value, ‘the good’ one might say, lies outside the space of facts.
Wittgenstein CV 5
These two sentences relate to possible ideas and development in a post-moral culture and society. In a period when everything can be questioned, even the existence of god, there is no general consensus or dogma, and therefor no morals. If there is more than one moral which is equally valid, it should no longer be called moral, but just a cultural perspective or cultural agreement, a norm.
The confusion is still there, we take cultural agreements to be morals. Their once-holy-religious-status can now take form in reality only as a mistake, as a mismatch between what one has in mind and reality as an event shared by all people. Again, morality is an illusion, for it to take a strong form, a certain period of history has to happen, and even then it would be valid for a certain people at a certain place, as long as they all support it.
A society that does not hold the same morals is a weak society, its possibility of action towards the inside and outside is quite limited. A society with strong morals is strong internally but not externally. A society with no morals but agreed social norms is a strong society, it utilizes to power of changing thought to progress, a vision of western society. By strong I mean achieving one’s wish.
Change begins with courage, with listening. A change is at the end always a response to somethings external, though it happens internally. Learning is the process of adjusting to new data. Becoming is the action of realizing learned lessons to express externally. Personal progression utilizes change which is a result of endless skepticism. De omnibus dubitandum est.
True Christian morality is dogmatic and limiting, the anti-christian is free and strong. The only down side of the anti-christian perspective is Christianity itself.
Conscience, the principle of right action, the philosophy of the medieval period, synderesis without conscientia, scholastic philosophy are conflations of signs and symbols .
Acting consciously is consistent with one’s thought of action, not consciously is opposite of one’s thoughts. If we are to decide that a conscious is just a term that should not exist, a mistake of language, a sign (inner voice ?), than having no conscience means only that we are not committing to one way of behavior because it could be wrong, Skepticism as a way for improvement.
Ignorance: But my heart and life agree together, and therefore my hope is well grounded.
Bunyan 1965 [1678], p. 185
Christian: Who told thee that thy heart and life agrees together ?
Ignorance: My heart tells me so.