Superultramodern Ethical / Aesthetical Relativism (SEAR)

According to Superultramodern Ethical/Aesthetical Relativism (SEAR) nothing is absolutely good or bad (or beautiful or ugly), but, as Shakespeare said, thinking makes it so. The novelty in SEAR is its foundations. A thinks C (say an idea) is good while B thinks C is bad. Now it seems that there can be no logical or conceptual criteria to determine if A, for example, is right or wrong. The law of syllogism ( if p implies q and q implies r then p implies r ), for example, is logically true in the sense that one ( at least I ) has to think ( apart from the principle of universal doubt ) that it is true and if someone thinks it to be false then it is his/her inability to see the truth in the law of syllogism or, more importantly, to understand what the law of syllogism states or the concepts it involves. So the principles like the law of syllogism are supposed to be eternal as they cannot be otherwise. They have to be the way they are forever, regardless of individual minds. However, this does not apply to ethical judgments, as one can reasonably think otherwise. The concepts good and bad allow far more flexibility, and if one, for example, thinks that it is good to hurt others for one’s own pleasure, this thinking involves no conceptual contradiction, as that is the way that person defines the concept of goodness. And how can there be any logical/conceptual/reasonable restriction on how one defines goodness or badness ? In case of the law of syllogism once we are clear about the terms p, q, r, and implication, the truth cannot logically/conceptually/ reasonably be denied. Ethical concepts are thus vague concepts. Concepts like implication, on the other hand, are concrete or clear. ( It is a different thing that if we mean to call dog, for example, as implication then it is a mere attaching of the label ‘implication’ to the concept of dog as ‘dog’ is also nothing but a label attached to some concept. )

In this particular world majority of people more or less agree on ethical definitions because their minds are constructed that way ( i.e. Programs are created to generate appropriate states of consciousness.) In the NSTP ( Non - Spatial Thinking Process ) theoretical terms if the non - spatial universal program is changed people would disagree or think different way/s.

SEAR is a component of Superultramodern Science (SS).