davidm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:46 pm
The "social" is called
intersubjective.
Oh, I'm familiar with the term "intersubjective." It's po-mo jargon for, "giving my free moral judgment up to the collective." It says, we'll "dialogue," and the "dialectic" will produce morality...
I don't recommend it, but people can choose to believe, if they want, that collectives (ideological groups, cultures, nations, whatever) have a moral discernment and integrity the individual doesn't, and that by "interacting" with that mass we are suddenly made wise...but there isn't any reason to believe that works. After all, other names for collectives with a singular "moral" will are things like, "power-blocks," "cults" and "mobs."
To show otherwise, you'd have to show me that putting a few people together generates a more "moral" outcome than the individual can arrive at. The problem, of course, is that you could never do that without appealing to some conception of morality that transcends both...and the whole point of "intersubjectivity" is to be able to say, "we don't need to do that."
And that's the thing. The reason most (certainly not all) people follow, or aspire to follow, the GR, is because it makes sense to do so.
As Nietzsche saw so clearly, it makes no sense at all. What
does make sense, from an individual strategic position, is having a bunch of people following
conventional morality of some kind, so they become predictable and limited, but for the "Overman" individual to be able to pick it up or drop it at will, according to his strategic advantage, and without any moral compunction.
In other words, it may suit the individual to leave society "enslaved" (Nietzsche's term) to morality, but to put himself "beyond good and evil." That's ideal; because then he gets to be the one "Overman," and make use of all the other puppets at will.
Nietzsche was right: without God, morality makes no sense either. What makes sense for the individual is (selective, socially undetected) amorality.
...most of us (not all) would prefer to live in a pleasant society rather than an unpleasant one.
Sure. But let's not be disingenuous about that. We get a "pleasant" society if OTHERS are moral. We (the Overmen) don't have to be, because we are few. But playing the game this way, we rise to the top. There's no reason to forego that advantage.
"reciprocal altruism"
No, "
selective altruism." What makes sense is only
appearing to be altruistic, or being altruistic
when it suits the Overman to be. There's no need for
real altruism. That just gives up the competitive advantage.
Does that seem cunning and self-serving? Well, where is the Atheist code that says, "Thou shalt be consistently altruisitic?" It could as easily read, "Thou shalt fool the rest, and wait for your best opportunities."
Or, as is the case, it could not exist, and thus could say no such thing at all.