Origin of morality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1
  1. What is good and evil?

Good is something people want. Evil is something people do not want.

Good things include: health, strength. Evil as the end is something that hurts, if someone falls and hurt themselves, something evil has happened. Of course, that person might take care next time to ensure he doesn’t fall. The context of the fall for the immediate maybe evil, but maybe good in the long-term.

Nietzsche advocates we suffer immediate evil in order to reach the future good. A concept I agree, but I believe we should suffer in relation to our capacity.
If a weak starving slave receives beating for 10 days from his master, I believe the master is evil. Because such harsh treatment will not in any ways encourage the slave to get strong.

  1. Will to power

I have a thought. If the slave becomes stronger, doesn’t the master weaken comparatively. Wouldn’t the master be better off not encouraging the slave to strengthen?

Scenario A. Master beat slave, slave become strong, master weakens.
Scenario B. Master not beat slave, slave remains weak, master strong.

Isn’t beating the slave an ironic action? Does the master want the slave to strengten so the master can become the slave? Does the master have a will to lose power?

True will to power for an individual

I believe the true path to power is to compare oneself to everybody else. And become stronger than everyone else. But not letting people know you are stronger. After one becomes the strongest, the person should strive against one-self continuously.

True will to power for a society

A society will be powerful if all individuals have access to knowledge and actively compete to one’s capacity. Maybe in this situation true genuis can emerge.

2

Just like what whitelotus would say ‘Let’s cut the bullshit !’ :astonished: .

I thought we are supposed to be beyond this already. Beyond good and evil? I thought we are supposed to see not this duality of good and evil, but rather one form arising out of its origin. No?

3

Taking into consideration what was said after that definition, I can clearly see why your premises are consistent with your definition of good and evil. Unfortunately, I found some loopholes, but only insofar as your defintion is concerned. Suppose, for example, that I am a Police Officer and I spot someone overspeeding, I pull him/her over and go through protocol. In the process, I find out that this pleading individual, has a history of getting pulled over for speeding (and we’re of course assuming that this individual doesn’t have a good reason for speeding).
Now, I may not “want to” give him a ticket, but I ticket him anyhow, lest he causes an accident (which doesn’t necessarily mean he will).
-I, not wanting to give this pleading individual a ticket, does not directly imply that I am doing evil.
-This individual might want to speed, but that doesn’t directly imply that it is a good thing to speed. He is putting perhaps someone you know, or someone else, at risk.
Just to mention but a few.

4

marie.
I think when Nietzsche said ‘beyond good and evil’, he meant see beyond the traditional good and evil. And that good and evil are just human inventions, they do not exist. Power is all that matters.

I am trying to show that Good and evil do have a beginning.

Mcgrady001
You provided a legal example, not a moral example. An officer enforces the law. The law doese not provide much ground for discretion. I think a host of factors needs be taken into consideration when applying discretion. I don’t think I can’t adquately address your example.

5

ack

Yes. I agree. Except for the last statement you make. Good arose out of evil. and vice versa. You can do hermeneutics on this. No duality, the traditional mentality.

One caveat : Nietzsche has a very curious way of using the word “power”.

6

pinnacle of reason-

Evil as the end is something that hurts, if someone falls and hurt themselves, something evil has happened.

What about vice crimes? Morality surely exists beyond simply pain.

Nietzsche advocates we suffer immediate evil in order to reach the future good.

I never understood why he advocated this. Many times, the future good has nothing to do with anything. We suffer simply because something is causing us pain.

Isn’t beating the slave an ironic action?

No. You fail to see the mental aspect of torture. If a master beats a slave, he conditions him to be subservient. He might be tougher as to taking a beating, but he is weaker with regard to his courage, choice, and thought.

If, on the other hand, the master did not beat the slave, the slave would begin to question what, if not violence or threat of violence, is holding him back from revolting. He will then see that violence is a calculated risk worth taking precisely because the master let him go too long without a beating. Any further reading on domestic violence or torture would give you another perspective on this.

Sincerely,

Floyd

7

The will to power vs Good and evil

When the master eliminates the threat of potential competition(will to power), according to Nietzsche he’s in fact not doing himself any good. Because in the absence of competition, he can only compete against himself.

However, when the master encourages competition (will to lose power), he’s in fact doing himself good. Because through competition, he can only get stronger.

8

Morals are cornerstones for pretty much everything that encompasses law. Surprised you aren’t even remotely aware of that.
Nevertheless, a moral illustration coming right up. I was at the neighborhood grocery store 2 days ago, bought some mandatory groceries with the total bill adding up to 15 dollars. I reluctantly gave the cashier the only 100 dollar bill I had (for probably the remainder of the week), some of which was meant to pay for my vital prescription medication (I chose not to go into detail about what illness).The cashier, a fairly old lady, handed me back 90 dollars, the exact amount for my medication! I didn’t know what to do, give her back the 5 dollars or jeopardize my life. I ended up walking away with the 90 dollars.
I want to live, but should I have to be insincere? Is Good really what people want? You’re definition is just not substantial.

9

When I mean good I meant the ultimate good.
Now you feel guilty because you are $5 indebted to the grocer lady. Basically, you’ve got to balance money with guilt.

10

Pinnacle of Reason-

When the master eliminates the threat of potential competition(will to power), according to Nietzsche he’s in fact not doing himself any good. Because in the absence of competition, he can only compete against himself.

So? He is doing himself a bunch of good, in my opinion. If he encourages competition, he could lose. But as long as he beats that slave into submission, he is on top. So, let’s see here:

  1. Master enourages competition. Slave has some chance of winning. Master gets stronger as a whole, but has a chance of being beaten.

  2. Master beats slave to a pulp. Slave has no chance of winning. Master is weaker as a whole, but has no chance of being beaten.

If all you are talking about is Neitzche’s theory, then fine. It looks as if I am arguing with Neitzche then. Show me one person who would want to be stronger, but have a chance at losing when they could be weaker, but always win!

whitelotus-

Nietzsche has said, several times: “there is no will to power”

He was also a Grade A Nutball.

Sincerely,

Floyd

11

“2. Master beats slave to a pulp. Slave has no chance of winning. Master is weaker as a whole, but has no chance of being beaten.” - the master then compete against himself.

To take Nietzsche a step further. Assuming the stronger always kill the weak. Wouldn’t the ultimate society be consist of one superman?
I think at that point, when the last man stands. The last man will stand for infinite wisdom, the last man will become God.
Because comparatively, there is no wisdom outside the last man. The wisdom of the last man represented by X. The outside = 0
X/0=infinity
There will be no point perfecting oneself, because the present is the same as the present. X/X = 1, Y/Y=1. There is no point comparing to the past because the past is unchangable.

12

Pinnacle of Reason-

To take Nietzsche a step further. Assuming the stronger always kill the weak. Wouldn’t the ultimate society be consist of one superman?

Only if everyone fought each other. We are not talking about a utopian society, nor a superman. We are talking about one slave and one master. And whatever Neitzche says, the master will be better off beating his slaves rather than encouraging competition. The beatings will keep the slave in submission. Period.

There will be no point perfecting oneself, because the present is the same as the present. X/X = 1, Y/Y=1.

Huh? Could you clarify that for me? Of course the present is the same as the present, for they are identical, right? But what has the equality of the two presents (if there could be such a thing) have to do with perfecting or letting oneself go?

There is no point comparing to the past because the past is unchangable.

Where does this come from? The permanence of the past has nothing to do with comparing. If the past could be changed, then would you consider comparing it to the present? You see? It doesn’t matter. Just because the past isn’t changeable doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it or base our experiences on it. Here:

The past is unchangeable. I compare my thoughts of equality to those of the KKK in the past. Their thoughts are unchangeable, but comparing my thoughts and the resulting consequences to the KKK’s thoughts and their resulting consequences is useful in that I deem myself better and more open than they. I then realize my way is the way to go to make the world a better place. I have also then proved that the unchangeability (is that a word?) is not contingent on its usefulness for comparing the past to the present.

whitelotus-

that is, by far the crappiest thing I have ever seen anyone say about Nietzsche…congratulations

That was a bit harsh. But, I don’t like the idea that I alone see his limitations on certain arguments that don’t seem plausible.

Sincerely,

Floyd

13

PFloyd148

I agree one can learn from the past, (in fact, all our present knowledge came from the past) but no point “comparing” to the past.
You got it. The present is identical.
Master beat slave - Assume beating does destroy the slave’s spirit, then non competition come from the slave. At that point, Nietzsche says the master competes against himself. I know nothing about torture.

My special thanks to whitelotus

“that is, by far the crappiest thing I have ever seen anyone say about Nietzsche…congratulations”
Thank you very much, Dearest whitelotus. Thank you for insulting me.
(Note, me thanking whitelotus is an act of sublime will to power. Being nice to whitelotus makes him feel that he’s in my debt). His insults further strengthened my immunity to mindless insults.

14

How could you define a master as one who would beet another for dominance I think a master is one who can control all through understanding steering the rest of the ship standing a mast guiding them through ruff waters and schooling them in the deciet of calm waters all the time learning one who believes enslaving or punishment is a means of mastery cant master diebose and cant grasp the concept of the origen of morality or they would undestand ther mortality you are mortal because the first man who reached the level of mastery forgot it was bye ways of dark and bye ways of light in whitch made him a master he cast his darkside whitch devided the people of the world and created mortals.now the world is seperated in religeon and a battle of good and evil whitch is the exact premises needed to create a stronger more qualified being being. being baptised in a river that flows backwards and challenged at all roads bye good and evil. The one who holds no quarter and has no people also has no fixed beliefs therefore will live bye no laws. He or she will be imortal stuck in limbo unable to enter heaven or hell after walking the grey line and a series of reincarnations will have infinite knowledge of what divides the world infinites live in the verse not the universe

15

this whole master slave thing is not Nietzsche. Why are they confusing hegel with Nietzsche?

16

To some people evil is a solution to a problem, which would make evil something a person would want. Besides evil is in the eye of the beholder, there are many items and actions people find hard to find common ground upon. Some people call porn evil others call it their livelihood, while still others just are content to enjoy it as a pass-time.

If you’re looking for an example of a painful “evil” that we would use for a solution then look to Iraq. We cause all kinds of pain in the name of creating a solution. It’s all the means to the end. There have always been two types of people in this world; those that would do what needs to be done no matter what the cost and the others that would do only that which they feel comfortable doing morally. The majority of the time, if you want something done, you don’t always get the option of doing it comfortably.

17

Pinnacle of Reason-

I agree one can learn from the past, (in fact, all our present knowledge came from the past) but no point “comparing” to the past.

I never claimed one way or the other regarding learning from the past. That is a given. Are you trying your psychology tricks on me by agreeing with a strawman in an attempt to make me not care about the real argument? :slight_smile:

As for the comparing part, I gave you a specific event falsifying your claim, to which you simply ignored (which has become a habit for you, it seems) and restated your old argument without further justification. In short, you created a strawman, agreed with it, then restated what I had refuted.

Master beat slave - Assume beating does destroy the slave’s spirit, then non competition come from the slave. At that point, Nietzsche says the master competes against himself. I know nothing about torture.

Why assume that? When has constant, daily, severe beating not destroyed someone’s spirits? Geez, just because Neitzsche forgot to factor in psychology doesn’t mean you have to ignore it. Daily beatings=torture. You seem to argue a lot about daily beatings, so I can assume you know about torture as well.

Lastly, Neitzsche is right. The master does compete against himself. But if he goes so far as to claim that the master is better off, he is dead wrong.

(Note, me thanking whitelotus is an act of sublime will to power. Being nice to whitelotus makes him feel that he’s in my debt). His insults further strengthened my immunity to mindless insults.

If you believe that.

diebose-

Are you stoned?

Sincerely,

Floyd

18

PFloyd148

Sorry for not replying to your example.

“2. Master beats slave to a pulp. Slave has no chance of winning. Master is weaker as a whole, but has no chance of being beaten.” - Then master is not the superman, but a slave because he has the “slave” morality.

“The past is unchangeable. I compare my thoughts of equality to those of the KKK in the past. Their thoughts are unchangeable, but comparing my thoughts and the resulting consequences to the KKK’s thoughts and their resulting consequences is useful in that I deem myself better and more open than they. I then realize my way is the way to go to make the world a better place. I have also then proved that the unchangeability (is that a word?) is not contingent on its usefulness for comparing the past to the present.” - what is the point of comparing your thoughts to the KKK? (assume KKK is worse morally) Just so you Feel more civilized? You are adopting the “slave” morality. Instead of comparing yourself to those better than you, you are comparing yourself to those worse than you, so you feel you are their “moral” master. And who gave you the Authority that your thoughts are in any way “better” than the KKK?

Will to power = will to assert power over others. The assertion of power become neccessary when the herd is different from the individual. The will to power aims to have power over the herd IN ORDER to change the mentality of the herd. My question is, does the herd come to the individual or does the individual go to the herd?

“severe beating not destroyed someone’s spirits?” - the greatest of all will sacrifice for will, life itself. i.e saints holding firm to their conviction during torture. Showing his tortuers that torture has no Power over him, thus his Will can endure torture.

have you actually read Nietzsche?

NeoPertacus

did you read what you quoted?
“Good is something people want. Evil is something people do not want.” - want is arbitary.

19

Pinnacle of Reason-

- Then master is not the superman, but a slave because he has the “slave” morality.

Ok. I have said this before, but I don’t think you noticed it. I am not arguing whether he is the superman or not, or whether he has the slave mentality or not. You argued that the master would be better off. There is a clear difference between philosophical terms and the state of being better off. I don’t think you understand the difference.

One more time: It is fine that he is not the superman, or is slave or whatever, but when I said this before:

If all you are talking about is Neitzche’s theory, then fine. It looks as if I am arguing with Neitzche then.

I meant that he can be whatever Neitzsche says he is, but he is not better off. And that is what your primary claim was in your first post:

Wouldn’t the master be better off not encouraging the slave to strengthen?

Is it clear now? You seem to be making a habit of creating strawmen, and arguing with them instead of me. I hope this clears things up for further discussion. If you want to argue that he is not superman, or has a slave morality, fine. But don’t expect me to swallow whole the claim that a master would not be better off beating his slaves.

- what is the point of comparing your thoughts to the KKK? (assume KKK is worse morally) Just so you Feel more civilized?

As you are known to say: OMG. The point of me comparing my thoughts to the KKK is for the explicit purpose of proving you wrong! This is starting to get ridiculous. When you make a claim, and I propose a counterexample, don’t ask what the point was (unless you really didn’t know the point, which in that case, I’m sorry for you). My personal reasons (if I had any) for comparing myself to the KKK are my own, they don’t need to be known for my point to take. The only thing you need to know is that for the purposes of our discussion, I proved one of your claims wrong.

You are adopting the “slave” morality. Instead of comparing yourself to those better than you, you are comparing yourself to those worse than you, so you feel you are their “moral” master. And who gave you the Authority that your thoughts are in any way “better” than the KKK?

I don’t need to respond to this, as it has nothing to do with my refutation of your claim.

- the greatest of all will sacrifice for will, life itself. i.e saints holding firm to their conviction during torture. Showing his tortuers that torture has no Power over him, thus his Will can endure torture.

I asked you for an example of when torture doesn’t destroy spirits, and you gave me one! I think that might be the first time you have directly answered one of my questions. :slight_smile:

Does this apply to slaves? On a general scale? And, on another note, if the saint doesn’t respond to torture, kill him. There. Master is better off again.

have you actually read Nietzsche?

No. But that doesn’t mean I can’t question your incorrect claims of master and slave. If this is what Netizsche is all about, it makes me wonder what all the hype is about (but judging from whitelotus’ comment, I doubt you understand Neitzsche)

Sincerely,

Floyd

20

I must once again thank whitelotus for mocking me. I am developing incredible resistance to insults.

“OMG. The point of me comparing my thoughts to the KKK is for the explicit purpose of proving you wrong!” - you haven’t proven me wrong.

“I don’t need to respond to this, as it has nothing to do with my refutation of your claim.” - you haven’t refuted anything. haha, i think you are running out of things to say.

Try sparknotes.com you can find easy to understand summaries of Nietzsche there.