Morality, Aesthetics, Interpretation

Nietzsche's thesis, "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena", is slightly misleading, because it entails a distinction between a phenomenon and an interpretation that he elsewhere seems to deny. A basis for that denial has been previously presented here, i. e. a demonstration that a 'phenomenon' is a product of construction, and is not merely given, as Phenomenologists tend to presume. On that basis, it also follows that there are no 'aesthetic phenomena', only 'aesthetic' interpretations. Now, as has been previously discussed here, the traditional distinction drawn between 'moral' and 'aesthetic', grounded on that between Doing and Making, is questionable, i. e. Doing has been shown to be Self-Making. On the other hand, any process of interpretation entails what Kant calls "an art concealed in the depths of the human soul". So, even though Kant does not explore the relation between that Art and Genius, it still follows that Moral judgments are subject to Artistic standards.