There is no more argument on the basis of fact. It seems that people believe that the predominant ethics of today are based on accepted rational belief. If that were so, however, we would be able to reach a consensus through argument. This isn’t the case. In fact, arguing with anyone over a belief they hold tends to lead to anger and an end to civil discourse.
Why is it that we can’t come to agreement anymore? Quite simply, it is because our belief systems are no longer rooted in truth or fact. If you follow the basis for modern ethics back to their roots, you reach hazy area where emotional pleas substitute for actual basic principles.
Take, for example, the commonly held notion that people should not be subjected to evaluation based upon the color of their skin. Ask yourself why this is? Most people are going to say that it isn’t fair and that we come to incorrect conclusions about people by making hasty judgements based on appearance. Is it not also true, however, that people who looks similar often – not always – but often have similar characteristics, mannerisms, and beliefs? This isn’t an appeal to racism, however it is an appeal to base our ethics and beliefs on fact, not on cloudy, whimsical notions that are based on our cultural inheritance of judeo-christianity and Hollywood non-sense.
Take this a step further into the meta. Most likely you have a reaction to the above paragraph. At the very least it is unease – something has been said that is problematic. Someone could get in trouble for suggesting it. Nearly as likely is that you have rejected it outright as a heresy to modern thought. It could not possibly be true that different races of human are actually different. The idea is disquieting and uncomfortable and you are already charging yourself up to deny any facts that might be presented.
Instead, consider the wikipedia article on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Note that the central tenet is that there are racial differences in intelligence by the definition we give it. Although that fact is presented clearly, most of the article goes on to discuss why it might not REALLY be true. One section says, “It’s not genetic, it’s due to environmental and developmental causes”.
In the end, the concept of racial disparities becomes not simply a curiosity, but a call for rearrangement of the social power structure. If a disadvantaged group can never overcome their suppression and perform as well as the higher socioeconomic status group, then an external force must intervene to allow the disadvantaged group the ability to become more powerful. Resistance by the incumbent group results in derision and shame. But in the end, what happens when there is a new incumbent? Will they share power? Or will there simply be a new king of the hill?
The end game here is unclear and how the ultimate good will be served is not clear either. This is because there is no fundamental principle being exercised. It’s simply a matter of appeal to emotion – that the little man be allowed to win and that the strong man is inherently bad because of his strength. It’s a Hollywood plot being applied to our entire social structure without true cause or basic ethic to fall back on. The problem with Hollywood plots is that they are made to make us feel good about the end. The people who met each other 90 minutes ago on the screen get married and it feels like magic. But once the curtain goes down, life goes on for the rest of us.
All that is to say that postmodernist thought is entirely about an appeal to emotion. There is a sense of fairness that is a matter of cultural inheritance, not a reasoned approach from first principles. This meandering, non epistemological morass of head-nodding forced agreement means that argumentation against it is impossible. Because if you don’t accept the postmodernist belief system at face value, then its adherents only have emotion as response – because that’s all they had to begin with.