Atradu eseju (būtu bijis ok ielikt linku jau pašā sākumā, nav jau tā, ka visi seko līdzi visam), konstatēju, ka laba (t.i., diezgan loģiska un izrietoša)

Beeet ko tu saki par šo?

"And yet it will be said, I have just admitted that our ideas of good may improve. How is this to be reconciled with the view that "traditional morality" is a depositum fidei which cannot be deserted? The answer can be understood if we compare a real moral advance with a mere innovation. From the Stoic and Confucian, "Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you"; to the Christian, "Do as you would be done by" is a real advance. The morality of Nietzsche is a mere innovation. The first is an advance because no one who did not admit the validity of the old maxim could see reason for accepting the new one, and anyone who accepted the old would at once recognize the new as an extension of the same principle. If he rejected it, he would have to reject it as a superfluity, something that went too far, not as something simply heterogeneous from his own ideas of value."

Man šķiet, ka tas, ko viņš sauc par "subjektīvismu" (vai "relatīvismu") mūsdienās ir drīzāk novedis pie nākamās morālās aksiomas, apmēram "Pirms dari otram kaut ko, ieklausies un izproti, vai tas viņam būs labi", kas, manuprāt, kategorizējas nevis kā "viss iepriekšējais slikts, fuckoff" inovācija, bet gan kā attīstība. Pagājušā gadsimta ~60tajos, kad šī eseja tika rakstīta, cilvēki točna nebija līdz tam dadomājušies, attiecīgi viņa "subjektīvisms" nav mūsdienu "subjektīvisms".