That does not mean they’re free. And that does not mean they know good and evil, let alone walk beyond good and evil.
Beyond good and evil, allows the possibility of all “evils”. It does not reject them. To reject evil, is to reject freedom.
For freedom you must accept good and evil, in others, and in deep within your own heart. Haven’t you ever wanted to hurt somebody, badly? Haven’t you ever felt rage? Haven’t you ever wanted to take, without asking, without regret? Haven’t you ever wanted power? I know you have. But power is a touchy subject. We must not talk about power? We must not talk about…the power to justify evil? We must not discuss that it is permissible to kill this man, because of these reasons, but not this other man, because of these other reasons?
Freedom is the equal acceptance of evil, along with good. Embrace your inner evil. You deny it, but you know it’s inside you. It’s that yearning, that jealousy, that resentment you’ve been saving for yourself. A man has a billion dollars. He won’t miss a million. Take it, why not? You won’t get caught. Nobody will know. There’s nothing wrong with stealing. It’s not evil, is it? Even if it were evil, aren’t you free from morality? Your family is hungry, take it, steal it.
See this woman over here? She’s more beautiful than you. She gets all the attention. If only you could…push her…out of the way, out of the picture. Then the glory, the beauty, would be all yours. You’ve never felt jealousy? You’ve never wanted revenge?
Children have no freedom. And adults attempt to crush the minds, desires, and passions of children, before they can take root. Adults, teachers, relatives, society, government, all attempt to crush the spirit of young boys and girls, thirsty for power. They want to stamp out true freedom, before any of the children hear of this idea.
Freedom, to transcend morality, to step beyond good and evil. You have equal capacity to kill as you do to spare life. You control, dictate who lives, and who dies.
Freedom, do you know what this is? You cannot have freedom while you reject evil, and deny it within yourself. Denial leads to repression, leads to resentment, leads to hate. Yet you call hate “evil”, don’t you? Hatred is only the result of a crushed freedom.
Have you ever seen a parent beat his or her own child into submission, into whimpering like a dog? Have you ever seen a little child’s soul crushed and broken?
I don’t get your point. You’re just asking me a bunch of questions about what I feel. I probably feel much of the same things you do. I think we do accept that people do evil shit. Perhaps rejecting evil is an exercise of freedom. Have you considered that?
Would I take a million from a billionaire if I knew I wouldn’t get caught? Probably. Am I free now?
Go further. Somebody has the nerve to argue against you. You are king of the United States. Will you allow this disrespect to go unpunished? Won’t you make an example out of him? If you don’t, then he’ll gain power. 3 others will speak against you, then 300, then 3000000. You are losing face, losing respect. Your subjects no longer fear you. They feel that they can rise against your power, your absolute freedom. Are you just going to sit there and be dethroned?
Aren’t you going to punish somebody for speaking against you, how dare they? How will you make an example out of those who go against you?
With your freedom, are you merciful, or vengeful? It’s not until you have power, that you can understand freedom. It’s not until you understand freedom, that you can see good and evil. It’s not until you can see good and evil, that you can step beyond both.
The psychological process of dehumanization often occurs when faced with such moral problem. We have encountered this dilemma, and by that, I mean the morality of killing a human being before and still do in many parts of the world. Dehumanization appears to be a natural phenomenon to humans, usually expressed as discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. It usually does not go as far a killing, but it has done so throughout history, such as one ethnic group wants to be free of the other which it sees as inferior. (ex: Germans → Jews → Palestinians) Perhaps it is a necessary psychological process when faced with morality.
Don’t we do it when we go to war?
Depends on what one calls ‘freedom.’ Does freedom mean knowing all your alternative choices or does freedom mean being able to chose among those alternatives? I think it’s the latter.
I’ve read of deliberate ‘scoff laws’ who’ve chosen to pit their wits against the ‘law.’ The latest is a man defending himself against a ticket for driving in a diamond lane when he was the single occupant. He says the letters of incorporation he carries with him constitute a second person, since the SCOTUS has given ‘personhood’ status to corporations. He was free to make his choice and he made it based on his interpretation of the ‘law of the land.’
The crux is that to have uninhibited freedom means you have nothing to protect you from danger, which then coerces out into making one choice over another through something other than you’re own uninhibited freedom I mean people…for the most part when they talk about freedom just never bring up the nature of how it can and can’t be in reality, and they go back and fourth on these ridiculous ideas about how it’s one or the other or something. Total retardation.
I wish someone would explain to me what kind of freedom we’re talking about. Freedom from brainwashing? Freedom from political coercion? Freedom from your conscience? From your emotions? From your past experiences? Freedom from the laws of nature? And are we talking about making choices randomly or based on some kind of reasoning/justification?
Freedom from vs. Freedom to is the only way you can really talk about actual freedom. It’s some kind of balance between those two which are necessarily at odds. Any other freedom talk will just end up being a fruitless attempt to force the world into an ideal where it wont actually fit.
I’ve asked part of the same question, gib, but the OP hasn’t answered, yet. I chose freedom of choice, since the OP talks about morality or how freedom means the ability to choose whatever you want whether or not it’s moral, thus making freedom ‘anti-moral.’ It’s playing with words, imm.
You’ll have to explain this to me, Smears. To me, it sounds like “freedom from” = “freedom to.” To wit, freedom from the law = freedom to commit whatever crimes you want. At the same time, I figured a bit of clarification on what we’re arguing we should be free from would help us address the question of whether or not that’s compatible with morality. That seems pretty fruitful to me.
He doesn’t seem to be answering at all anymore.
You’re probably right. The problem with Atthet’s position is that he doesn’t seem to realize that making the choice to do whatever you want is equivalent to being a slave to your passions. I wonder if he’s ever pondered whether people would choose to do good simply because they can.