At Layer 5: Contemplative silence or metaphysical meditation.
Thus, the moral agent becomes a navigator, not merely a reasoner---engaged in ongoing translation, tension management, and interpretive flexibility.
The theoretical reconstruction inspired by SMH disrupts foundationalist ethics and reorients moral philosophy toward complexity, pluralism, and reflexivity. It affirms that morality is not an edifice to be built from a single principle, but a terrain to be crossed, questioned, and co-created. The path forward is less about universal certainty, and more about epistemic courage in the face of dissonance, transcendent humility, and communal deliberation.
7. Case Studies and Contemporary Applications
This section demonstrates the explanatory and diagnostic utility of the Setiawan Moral Hierarchy (SMH) through real-world applications. By mapping moral conflict and ambiguity onto SMH's layered framework, we highlight how contemporary dilemmas often result not from the absence of values but from conflicting moral strata. We also show how moral agents, collectives, and institutions may privilege certain layers over others, consciously or not, resulting in profound ethical tensions.
7.1 Hegemonic Political and Moral Polarization
Contemporary political polarization, especially in democracies, reflects not merely divergence in policy preference but deep-seated conflicts between competing layers of moral orientation. For instance:
Right-wing populism often mobilizes Layer 2 (communitarian and identity-based moralities) and Layer 3 (religious/authoritarian certainty).
-
Progressive/liberal movements, conversely, tend to elevate Layer 1 (empathy, harm reduction) and Layer 4 (structural and discursive justice).
This explains why debates around gender rights, minority protections, or free speech frequently devolve into moral impasses, each side invoking valid but incommensurable layers of moral reasoning.
Moreover, political elites often manufacture moral hegemonies by sacralizing a single layer as the ultimate arbiter of national ethics. This tactic obscures moral complexity and delegitimizes dissent, leading to moral essentialism and policy gridlock.
