The Setiawan Moral Hierarchy (SMH) provides a distinctive intervention in the landscape of moral theory. This section compares the SMH with dominant moral frameworks, highlighting its epistemological uniqueness, structural depth, and practical relevance across socio-political contexts.
4.1 Against Linear Development: From Kohlberg to Setiawan
While Kohlberg's model assumes a unidirectional and cognitive progression from obedience to principled reasoning, Setiawan rejects both teleology and cognitive supremacy. His model emphasizes that moral orientation is not necessarily developmental but often situational, conflicted, and inter-stratified.
For instance, someone might adopt transcendent values (e.g., love for humanity) while functioning under hegemonic or legalistic constraints. In contrast to Kohlberg's final stage (universal ethical principles), SMH does not posit a fixed endpoint, but rather a dynamic field of moral tensions. It is pluralistic, not hierarchical in the sense of superiority, but rather layered in causal and structural significance.
4.2 Beyond Rational Consensus: Setiawan vs. Habermas
Habermas' communicative ethics rests on the ideal of rational discourse as the pathway to normativity. Yet, real-world moral decisions often involve actors from diverse traditions, emotional states, and epistemic standpoints that cannot be reconciled merely through procedural rationality.
Setiawan acknowledges the role of discourse (second and third levels of his hierarchy) but situates it within the broader machinery of power, belief, and transcendence. He exposes how "consensus" may mask hegemonic interests or silence dissent grounded in spiritual or cultural otherness. In doing so, SMH aligns more closely with postcolonial ethics, agonistic pluralism, and non-Western epistemologies.
4.3 Justice, Authority, and the Transcendent: Rawls Revisited
Rawls emphasizes fairness via institutional justice, grounded in the logic of impartiality. Setiawan, however, introduces an additional layer: transcendence as a source of moral contestation. Whereas Rawls brackets metaphysical claims to preserve neutrality, SMH integrates them to explain moral resistance against corrupt institutions or hegemonic laws.
This inclusion enables SMH to reincorporate prophetic traditions, religious dissent, and spiritual awakenings that cannot be justified within Rawlsian liberalism but have historically catalyzed justice movements (e.g., Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or postcolonial liberation theologians).
4.4 Epistemological Implications: Reconfiguring Moral Knowledge
