Why argue that all motivations an action are power? So you can apply power. People seek a moral justification for the application of force in service of the causes they desire to advance. They want moral authority to act.
Civilizations differ mostly in what they take for granted. That’s where the real differences lie. In the premises that ubdergird everything built on top of them. Not in the actions themselves, or what humans are capable of (humans are fairly similar across time), but in the whole structure underlying an action that makes it seem justified, so that you don’t even have to think about it.
So you can have a law today that says, give the first portion to these people and not to these people. And if those groups are racially defined, what then? That’s clearly racial bias, totally obviously, it totally fails the test of reversal and categorical imperative. It’s blatantly racism and racial preference. But if we’re so different and so much better, how is it that we can do such things and think them justified? Why can you do it? Because you have a system of moral justification behind it.
According to modern political and ethical theory, the system is rigged, as a fundamental premise, therefore it is justified to rig the sysytem. There’s not even such a thing as an unrigged system, according to postmodernism. Just an argument about how and who you’re going to rig it for. Who you’re happy to see benefit and who you are unhappy to see benefit. If all systems are rigged and all ethics are relative, why you should feel the need to correct for such things, or in what way correction differs in any way ethically from whatever bias currently predominates, is entirely beyond me.
What higher justification is there for tampering with who or who isn’t centralized or marginalized? If they’re all the same. If, over time, you succeed to such a degree that the roles flip, are you then obligated to work to reverse things again? That certainly happened many times in China. One group would dominate, another would be marginalized, then eventually there would be a war, millions would die, the board would be reset, and now the positions would be reversed. And the whole thing would begin all over again. Then flip again.
Assuming, as postmodernism does, that there is no real structural or selective reason that one group tends to succeed, that all differences are arbitrary and unreal and all success is manipulation. If that’s the case, why favor one manipulation over another? In particular, why bother working to tear down one manipulation just to bring up another, a process that’s likely to be very messy and difficult. Why bother, if it’s all the same?
Making Nobody Happy 