Implications of Moral Relativism in Anti-Foundationalism and Pragmatism in Dichotomous Politics

Dichotomous political institutions often employ their values, rationality, and pragmatism to support anti-foundationalism while disregarding the implications that moral relativism has in the system. The primary argument is that it validates the current iteration of such a political philosophy presuppositional inference. Anti-foundationalism is, nonetheless, an effective instrument for dichotomous political systems. It is an approach that covertly uses foundationalism-opposing ideas and principles while distorting and modifying foundationalism in a way that seems to reflect and integrate foundationalism-opposing connotations. The presuppositional implications of anti-foundationalism, however, only marginally camouflage it.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to suspect that the theory, regardless of the preexisting sociologically structured and diverse political philosophies, can proliferate cultural relativism in dichotomous political systems. This premise discredits Hammurabi's development of the first legal theory in 1750 BCE, which was intended to provide valid logic that humanity shares accountability for contemporary moral relativism across all civilizations. The foundation for an absolute conviction for such assertions is not yet facilitated by beliefs based on transcendent or metaphysical elements. It does so by defying and perhaps even abolishing the limits imposed by both internal and external cultural influences.

Other constraints are logically necessitated by the modern integration of the multi-generational transformation in politics to preserve the resilient province of political evolution within the dichotomous political system. This theory fundamentally predicates the repudiation of epistemological claims as a premise for reasoning that neglects transcendental or metaphysical concepts as a mode of functional and moral relativism. It does, however, constitute a comprehensive review of the findings related to multiple philosophical belief systems that declare their validity is precarious in and outside of nature.

Any philosophical interpretation that argues imperturbability regarding contemporary natural and cultural factors where the theory derives logical reasoning is still an incidental dichotomy. This philosophical thesis warrants further study because its paradoxical explanation acts against moral relativism and cultural relativism with its meticulously designed fallacious reasoning, i.e., foundationalism as the sole alternative to an inferential justification to discredit skepticism, amorality, absurdism, and of course, anti-foundationalism.

The validity of this proposition and its observed relevance demonstrate objectivity in these instances, which may or may not be produced by fluid adaptations to modern and postmodern developments. Its connection to moral relativism and ethical relativism supports secular subjectivity despite its irrelevance in nature, within the current judicial system. As noted, and theoretically deduced, the implementation of secular morality as a disciplinary and governmental conviction in legal ruling insinuates that continual dissent from moral relativism will generate more power in dichotomous political systems.

It is unification through separation that grants dissent without decontextualizing the methodology used, regardless of the dispositional attributes, which may or may not influence it. It is divisive among a select minority of pragmatists because they have tried, and failed, to extrapolate anti-foundationalism elements into a role that it did not intend. This illustration may invalidate holistic perspectives based on cultural considerations and accompanying moral relativism while also demonstrating the strength of this political theory with pragmatic and jurisprudential application.

The foundation of this proposal inextricably links to hierarchy and its ideology that it cannot separate from either, lest they lose their strength. For instance, reciprocal altruism and the human propensity for regression are not impervious to the conceptual divide that the authorities facilitate and promulgate the separation of communities to covertly veil underlying dialectic materialism within the dominance of capitalism.

Separation causes the need to consume regardless of which side of the political fence one chooses—it is the division under one nation that prevails over progressive perspectives in modern philosophy. As a result, the upper echelon in the social class perpetuates the formative condition within one descriptor that assimilates and enforces realism for a population intended for authoritarian control inside the model of a stratification system or centralization of authority.

We have the power to evolve, to divorce from regression lest we perish with the past.