Your argument was, Neitzsche abandoned morality and I countered that.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:17 pmYou should read his book "Beyond Good and Evil." You'd change your mind.
But you're right about one thing: not even Nietzsche could find a way to make Atheism work. Having destroyed the legitimative foundations of all morality, he had to smuggle something back in. And this is where you get this talk of "higher morality": Nietzsche thought his values could be substituted for the old "Judeo-Christian" ones he had despised. He brought them back in though a hierarchy, by affirming "the Will to Power" as the highest of the values.
The problem, of course, is that not only does this contradict conventional morality, but also Nietzsche had no more basis for his hierarchy than he had for Judeo-Christian morality, once he had thrown away all the Judeo-Christian suppositions.
So yes, Nietzsche was a failure. His morality was a fraud, based on no more than the eloquence of his rhetoric, but lacking any foundation in truth. But he made a better try of making it work than most Atheists ever do. And we can give him some credit for that.
I have read "Beyond Good and Evil" show precisely what is so evil or negative about it?
The Judeo-Christian morality does work but it is more for human-animals who are enforced by threats of perdition and violence, i.e. comply or else be burnt in eternal hellfire.
Where humans strive to be being more human, the proposed morality can only be one-up and higher than the basic Judeo-Christian morality. This is so obvious.
Neitzsche's morality is definitely a type of 'higher morality that the Judeo-Christian morality. Neitzsche's morality was influenced by Schoppenhauer and a bit of Kant [which he critiqued]. However Nietzsche's model and system of morality was higher than the Judeo-Christian morality, albeit it was not as organized and efficient as Kant's.
An effective Moral and Ethics System will ensure each human will act spontaneously and voluntary on his/her own freewill with the optimal ethical value with an incremental trend against the established secular absolute moral rules as guides.
I have already mentioned the "no ought from is" [esp of Hume] is basic philosophy, not higher philosophy.If this were true, and we granted you all you say, you would still only have an "is" there, not an "ought." And that's a very serious fault. But since you don't understand it, it seems, I don't know if you can grasp that problem yet. It's terminal, though.You are again ignorant of humans as 'animals'.
Yes, we are 'animals' but we are the highest form of evolved 'animals with an evolving and progressive faculty of moral and ethics within the human brain and mind. This is so evident from the behaviors of humans since 200,000 years ago to the present.
I have argued for morality and ethics for the purpose of ensuring humanity's progress we need to establish absolute moral oughts as guides for an effective moral & ethics system.
The point is you can make all the noise you can, but the framework of morality and ethics [Kantian] is very sound on paper. It is a matter of implementing and practicing it for it to mature within the next 100 or 200 years.
The trend from 500 years ago to the present indicate there is a decrease in secular wars especially now that we have various channels opened for nations involved to seek peaceful solutions. Even with Nukes the secularists are faced with an inherent deterrent, i.e. Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD.Even were we, in some sense, evolved to behave in ways we call "moral" (which we're clearly not, as we have killed more of each other in the previous century in secular wars and conflicts than in all previous human history combined, and now threaten total extinction of the planet), it would not suggest anybody had a duty to stay with that. A better strategy for each of us individually would be to convince others to be moral, while we allowed ourselves to be selectively immoral, whenever it suited our personal interests.
It is argued theistic wars killed more than secular wars, especially those wars started and driven by the ideology of Islam.
Worst still for the present with the availability of Nukes where SOME Muslims as driven by Islam, Muslims will not give a damn for MAD or if the human species is exterminated since regardless they are assured of eternal life in paradise [with 72 virgins for some].
Nah! the morality and ethics system of humanity cannot be allowed to be subjective according the whims of the individual or groups.
What we need are absolute secular moral rules to act as ceiling and max limit no humans should exceed and as guides only so as to drive improvements in ethics.
Any ordinary human being will definitely accept the following absolute moral rules as a guide or moral lighthouse,
"There shall be no war and no killing of another human"
Then on the ethics sides, we establish practical steps to strive to as close as possible to the impossible-to-achieve ideals, thus driving continuous improvements.
Humans are evolving towards the moral ideal which is inherent in humans [and primates] as I had justified with the present of mirror neurons and an inherent algorithm for a faculty of morality.And from an Atheist-Materialist perspective, why shouldn't we? What necessitates that if I can be evil and want to be evil, still I cannot choose, for whatever occasions I choose, to do or be evil? That doesn't even make sense from that worldview. So there's no consolation in the mere "is" of Evolutionism.
As this faculty evolves within each human being, is it natural it will inhibit and modulate the inherent impulses that are likely to result in evil and violent acts.
Note Aristotle on anger,
- Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
-with the right person and
-to the right degree and
-at the right time and
-for the right purpose, and
-in the right way
- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
The above is advocated and practiced within Buddhism and Buddhists respectively but it need to be more organized and formal.
An effective Framework of Morality and Ethic System will be more organized thus enable one with the skills
- -to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way -
It will also develop the balanced skills for each individual to deal with all the 'necessary' impulses that are vulnerable to turn evil and violent.