Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

242 MARTIN MCKEEVER
(34); the destructive effects of technology on the social order
have been exposed and are being challenged (201).
The postmodern perspective consists in the conviction that
not only did the modernist project fail but that it had to fail. In
this perspective the history of the modern world, particularly in
terms of the expansion of the State, the growth of colonial empires
and the emergence of the various totalitarian systems, is
reread as the story of a destructive form of civilization which
should not be spread. In this sense postmodernism can be seen
to include a powerful ethical critique of modernity.
Spontaneous moral impulse is the only source of morality
If the first tenet attempts to encapsulate the broad narrative
of modernity as presented by Bauman, this second tenet expresses
his moral vision in a more specific manner: it represents,
that is, a conclusion about morality which Bauman arrives at in
the light of the story just told.
Bauman’s conclusion is based on a radical distinction he
perceives between a discredited, systematic, universalist, foundationalist,
heteronomous ethics (21, 60, 61) and a modest,
spontaneous, responsible and autonomous morality (12, 32, 71).
The reasons for his rejection of heteronomous ethics, already intimated
in the narration of modernity, are developed by Bauman
in his discussion of “elusive universality” and “elusive foundations”.
The philosopher’s preoccupation with universals, he suggests,
is a reflection of the legislator’s project of universalization.
In other words, Bauman wishes to “unmask” the quest for universals
in philosophy as a furtive collusion with the political authority
of the modern State (38). In ethical terms, universal laws
are presented as valid for every reasonable creature but in fact
serve primarily as legitimizations of local political interests (42).
With the demise of the claims of the modern State to regulate
moral life, Bauman notes a developing tendency among
“communitarians” to propose norms not in the name of humanity
but rather in the name of some particular grouping (44), defined
by some specific characteristic (religion, gender, sexual
orientation etc.).
Bauman considers such claims a variation of the spurious