Nietzschean Ethics

The above subject may seem like an oxymoron. I am referring, however, to ethics in the broader sense of the word, when I ask what might be the ethical implications of Nietzsche's philosophy. Assuming he is generally correct, how should people in a society act?

This is such a tough topic to tackle I think because we would basically be starting from scratch, after having thrown the old morality out the window. One important factor would be value; certain actions should be deemed more valuable, based on how much they enhance the power of life. For instance, selfishness would be more valuable than meekness, because selfishness has more creative power. No great things are created out of self-denial, unless you consider religion great. Thus, society should promote selfishness over meekness. Laws and education could keep the selfishness from getting out of hand, from leading to crime.


It's getting late and I'm too tired to continue -- more tomorrow. If there is anybody out there who is familiar with Nietzsche, I'd love to hear your input. Thanks

[Zygote]

Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian)

objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy)

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian)

objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy)

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think Nietzchean "ethics" would be quite compatible with non-initiation of force (the source of libertarian ethics). There is nothing unethical about "meekness". What would be unethical under a Nietzchean concept would be for the meek to be able to use force (or Christian morality) to hold back the creative and strong. This is quite in line with Randian ethics (or any ethical basis which ascribes to non-initiation of force) as well.

[hmkpoker]

I don't know [censored] about Nietzsche, but imho, all people should do what is +EV for themselves.

...however, because life isn't as easily quantifiable as money, it is more difficult to figure out what value to assign to different things in life. Many people repeated choose -EV actions. It also often occurs that what is +EV for one person may be +EV for another person as well.

[Scotch78]

I don't mean to offend, but it doesn't seem like you've read much Nietzsche. For starters, selfishness is not a quality that Nietzsche would have promoted (nor is it the antithesis of meekness). For that matter, self-denial is also not the antithesis of selfishness.

However, if you are truly interested in Nietzschean ethics, look to ancient Greece. I'd recommend starting with Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

Scott

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to offend, but it doesn't seem like you've read much Nietzsche. For starters, selfishness is not a quality that Nietzsche would have promoted (nor is it the antithesis of meekness). For that matter, self-denial is also not the antithesis of selfishness.

However, if you are truly interested in Nietzschean ethics, look to ancient Greece. I'd recommend starting with Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

The Geneology of Morals is not a bad place to look if you want to read Nietzsche himself.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
The Geneology of Morals is not a bad place to look if you want to read Nietzsche himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could very easily be right, but I didn't want to recommend something I haven't read yet /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Also, if the OP is willing to work at it, Nietzsche's ethics can be worked out from Zarathustra.

Scott

edit: Though I could easily be wrong on this matter, as I have only read excerpts from the work, it was my impression that Toward a Genealogy of Morals was an analysis of more traditional ethics rather than an exposition of Nietzsche's morality.

"I don't mean to offend, but it doesn't seem like you've read much Nietzsche. For starters, selfishness is not a quality that Nietzsche would have promoted (nor is it the antithesis of meekness). For that matter, self-denial is also not the antithesis of selfishness."

I never said he promoted selfishness: I said he valued it more than meekness, which anybody who's read Nietzsche would agree with. You are right that meekness is not the antithesis of selfishness, but I think for our purposes it serves well, especially since it is a term used in Christianity (I was originally going to use unselfishness, but it sounded redundant - oh well).

Maybe some clarification on selfishness is in order. Nietzsche would hold that we are naturally selfish creatures because we are animals. So selfishness is more honest than selflessness. In the Genealogy of Morals, he gives an account of the rise of morality as a product of jealously and envy. Meekness was promoted while life-affirming activities (e.g. procreation, laughter, strength, defiance) were called evil.

He says in The Gay Science, "The lack of personality always takes its revenge.... 'Selflessness' has no value either in heaven or on earth." Nietzsche distrusts all selfless behavior because it is founded on resentment. Selfish behavior, conversely, is not resentful (and reactive), but proactive. While it can harm people, Nietzsche would rather have it because it is at the bottom of all great acheivements.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some clarification on selfishness is in order. Nietzsche would hold that we are naturally selfish creatures because we are animals. So selfishness is more honest than selflessness. In the Genealogy of Morals, he gives an account of the rise of morality as a product of jealously and envy. Meekness was promoted while life-affirming activities (e.g. procreation, laughter, strength, defiance) were called evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this paragraph deals with morality, it addresses Nietzsche's thoughts on Christian ethics, not his own morality.

[ QUOTE ]
He says in The Gay Science, "The lack of personality always takes its revenge.... 'Selflessness' has no value either in heaven or on earth." Nietzsche distrusts all selfless behavior because it is founded on resentment. Selfish behavior, conversely, is not resentful (and reactive), but proactive. While it can harm people, Nietzsche would rather have it because it is at the bottom of all great acheivements.

[/ QUOTE ]

And while this paragraph touches a little more on Nietzsche's beliefs, it does not address ethics. For example, I distrust one of my pledge brothers because he's a shady [censored], but that does not mean I think he's morally evil.

Judaeo-Christian ethics are primarily concerned with social actions, but ancient Greek and Nietzschean ethics are not; they are concerned foremost with self improvement. It is a fundamentally different foundation and I think that's the point you're stumbling on over Nietzsche.

Scott

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Geneology of Morals is not a bad place to look if you want to read Nietzsche himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could very easily be right, but I didn't want to recommend something I haven't read yet /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Also, if the OP is willing to work at it, Nietzsche's ethics can be worked out from Zarathustra.

Scott

edit: Though I could easily be wrong on this matter, as I have only read excerpts from the work, it was my impression that Toward a Genealogy of Morals was an analysis of more traditional ethics rather than an exposition of Nietzsche's morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that Zarathustra is probably the best place to look for what could be called Nietzschean ethics, though it's also probably his least accessible book. Genealogy deals with what he does not believe -- basically all of western morality since the time of christ -- and lays out clearly the type of life he sees as abhorent.

Since Genealogy is the most concise and accessible of his later works, I tend to recommend that to people who may not be familiar with him before tackling Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil, as those two works will make a lot more sense after reading the rather short Genealogy.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that Zarathustra is probably the best place to look for what could be called Nietzschean ethics, though it's also probably his least accessible book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're overlooking one very important fact: Zarathustra is a fun, interesting read /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Scott

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that Zarathustra is probably the best place to look for what could be called Nietzschean ethics, though it's also probably his least accessible book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're overlooking one very important fact: Zarathustra is a fun, interesting read /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but unfortunately most newbies to Nietzsche won't get it. It really depends upon the individual in question, but I think it is safe to say that if you presented the two books to a group of people with above average intelligence, it is very likely that on the first reading Genealogy would be much better understood than Zarathustra.

I agree with both of you: Zarathustra is very interesting and fun, but seems tough for someone who hadn't read much Nietzsche. I'm currently reading it, by the way. The Genealogy was the first I read by him and it was a good introduction for me.

That is exactly what I was stumbling on, thank you for pointing that out. I was getting there in my thinking but I wasn't aware that a similar ethics had already existed. So the ethical foundation is based on self-improvement, morals are irrelevant, and things are given value based on their life-enhancing qualities.

This may be true in the ethics of the ancients as well, but there is something different in Nietzsche. We can't leave out the overman, who is the ideal person in Nietzsche's society. There is a specific goal in mind for his ethics. The aim is to be like this overman, or at least help create a society out of which the overman can grow.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
That is exactly what I was stumbling on, thank you for pointing that out. I was getting there in my thinking but I wasn't aware that a similar ethics had already existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of Nietzsche's philosophy can be viewed as an existentialist modernization of Greek thought. I wouldn't say that's the most constructive way to interpret him, but his education was in philology and it would further one's appreciation of Nietzsche to understand his roots in classical Greece.

[ QUOTE ]
So the ethical foundation is based on self-improvement, morals are irrelevant, and things are given value based on their life-enhancing qualities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not too sure about the irrelevancy or morals, but Nietzsche would almost certainly agree that mores and taboos are irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
This may be true in the ethics of the ancients as well, but there is something different in Nietzsche. We can't leave out the overman, who is the ideal person in Nietzsche's society. There is a specific goal in mind for his ethics. The aim is to be like this overman, or at least help create a society out of which the overman can grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of an idealized man is not what really separates Nietzsche from ancient Greeks. Though I'm not aware of any ancient philosophers who codified their ideal qualities into a single personality (Plato's guardians would be the closest), there were ceratinly specific goals in self-improvement.

This is not to say there are no differences though. For example, I think Nietzsche gives the overman precedent over the society that creates him, whereas Plato would give preference to the society as a whole. I think this is in part due to the fact that Nietzsche was more individualistic than most Athenians.

Scott