양심에 대한 니체-프로이트의 계보학적 해석과 하이데거의 현상학적 해석 사이의 논쟁 넘어서기: 구조-구성주의 윤리학을 위한 시론

Almost all ethicists insist that it is impossible to establish the decisive foundation of ethics, and that moral judgments are not capable of objective truth or falsehood. In other words, most moral philosophers insist that we cannot avoid the problem of moral disagreement in a pluralistic society, and that the great moral discourses like Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's deontology are a total anachronism. In this context, Habermas and MacIntyre try to engage in moral discourses without recourse to moral foundations. For example, Habermas's better-known principle of universalization contains a kind of self-contradiction in itself, a principle which cannot be realized: a proposed norm is valid if all affected can accept the consequences, and the side effects of its general observance can be anticipated to satisfy everyone's interests. We cannot, however, make a social living without a moral foundation. I will thus try to illuminate that conscience is cognitive, universal and obligatory, synthesizing Nietzsche-Freud's genealogical perspective on it and Heidegger's phenomenological in the viewpoint of structure-constructivism which I have tried to justify in my lifetime. My conclusion is that, while a false conscience is to think an experience of the pressure of social values, the authentic is to feel the existence of my neighbor who is a different but similar person to me. Thoughts can be denied. Conscience is, however, not a thought and it cannot be denied.