|
MEN OF THE OLD TIME AND THE NEW 71 |
What now follows from this for the judgment of the moral man? This: that he throws the egoist into the only class of men that he knows besides moral men, into that of the -- immoral. He cannot do otherwise; he must find the egoist immoral in everything in which the egoist disregards morality. If he did not find him so, then he would already have become an apostate from morality without confessing it to himself, he would already no longer be a truly moral man.
[Editorial comments: Immoral is a judgment made from *within* a morality. The moral man, living within a morality, can only judge an egoist as immoral for ignoring morality. Men with different moralities may find each other wholly immoral, but they have the common belief in morality, which is not shared by the egoist. The egoist has transgressed against morality as such, which necessarily means transgressing against any and all moralities. The moral man may be able to make the distinction between those with a different morality than he, and those who disregard all moralities, such as egoists, but both of these classes will be judged immoral. The egoist, on the other hand, will find the operative philosophical distinction between the moral, who serve some morality, and the amoral, who serve no morality. Immoral only makes sense as a transgression from some morality; the egoist, having none, has no particular context in which to make the term meaningful. For the moral man unable to raise his head above his morality, moral can only mean in accord with morality, in the singular. The more insightful moral man may be able to see moralities in the plural, and having done so, be able to see the egoist's distinction between those with some morality, and those without any morality. Finally, do not confuse the egoist's distinction between moral and amoral as a distinction between those he likes or approves of, and those he doesn't. An egoist may detest or despise another egoist, and may love some moralists. ]