Right & Wrong

[hipn]

If laws cant stop people from raping and killing for things, then no rules would make it worst.

And true, right and wrong don't exist becaues nothing is meant to be, we created right and wrong to tell people what you should and should not do, plus right and wrong is like something we humans created to keep our lives organized.

[Its_asdf]

Normally right and wrong is determined by a person's beliefs or morals.

Lets say a guy robs a person. The person who got robbed will probably think that the thief who robbed him is a terrible person.

On the other hand, the thief might rob the person because he's desperate for money, and thinks its the right thing to do.

Its all about perspective, and people who do "wrong" things in our eyes are usually things that seem "right" to them.

[Jona]

Its all about perspective

You said it all.

[hipn]

Normally right and wrong is determined by a person's beliefs or morals.

Lets say a guy robs a person. The person who got robbed will probably think that the thief who robbed him is a terrible person.

On the other hand, the thief might rob the person because he's desperate for money, and thinks its the right thing to do.

Its all about perspective, and people who do "wrong" things in our eyes are usually things that seem "right" to them.

Good point.

[Its_asdf]

I forgot to add that there are plenty of different perspectives and views this in the forums as well.

A popular example would be when Riot thinks that George Bush and Kevin Garnett are the greatest people that god ever created, and everyone should bow down before them.

However, many people dislike Bush and think he's an idiot (I don't really think so), and people might argue that Kevin Garnett isn't the greatest player on the planet because he hasn't been a proven winner to take the Wolves to the championship round.

[Andrew]

That's true though the difference is morals are more widely accepted. Almost all cultures consider murder wrong and the greatest offense no matter whether you're talking about legally, morally or religious beliefs. Even though religions and cultures vary certain beliefs and values remain constant.

[Riot]

Right is pretty much what everyone said it was. Right is whatever society claims is right. That's really all I can add to this discussion that isn't sarcastic or brillantly hilarious.

[cyanide]

Society doesn't really claim what is right for everything. That's why we have left-wings and right-wings

[Riot]

I was talking about the more basic things that have been mentioned in this thread, like murder and what not.

[cyanide]

That's called common sense and you're not contributing to this thread at all Just kidding Riot, don't hate me

[Riot]

That's called common sense and you're not contributing to this thread at all

What's new?

[Null17]

Relative, depends on the situation but popularity should never be a factor. If something is wrong, it's wrong no matter if someone sees you doing it or not.

On the society thing, if we did something wrong that we thought was right, it doesn't make the act right but the doer of the action is not really completely at fault since he thought he was doing the right thing. Same thing on the second situation. Same logic applies to the rest of the examples given.

I just took my ethics class last semester But either way, you don't need an ethics class to know this

[Kriegz]

What exactly was the Holocaust? I keep hearing references to the "Holocaust" but I have no idea what it was...

Is the Holocaust just where Hitler took all the Jews or something?

I'd google it but like I want a short summary

Shit, you don't know what that is Ya it's the general term for the killing of the Jews,

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

That's true though the difference is morals are more widely accepted. Almost all cultures consider murder wrong and the greatest offense no matter whether you're talking about legally, morally or religious beliefs. Even though religions and cultures vary certain beliefs and values remain constant.

Indeed. But the fine difference of waht I said earlier, is that the only reason for murder to be considered 'wrong' is that it benefits the desire of the 'many' to feel protected from such an event happening upon themselves. Hence it has become 'law'.

[bullsfan009]

Warfare affords human beings the chance to forego the notion that killing another human being is wrong because of some noble cause. Basically, we humans can find loopholes in our own morality to suit our needs.

Well, for some people, it would be IMMORAL NOT TO wage war against an evil that is destroying people left & right. They're not "finding loopholes," but it's all part of the sense of moral obligation to fight evil.

He has a point. If Hitler DID win the War his way would be "right", and this is really confusing, but hey, slavery use to be the "right" way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy back in the day, but look at how it's now.. it ended and this is the right way, no more racism.

Just because society said that slavery was "right," doesn't at all mean that it was right. It took society time and a lot of uprising & wake-up calls to realize how WRONG they were ALL THAT TIME...

Thre is no pre-existent moral compass inside a newly born human being. His upbringing and personal experiences during the course of his/hers growing up will determine that person's moral fiber. Raise him/her in a paradise island, he/she'll be an innocent and a venerable saint. Raise him/her in prison, and he/she 'll be the scum of teh earth.

I strongly disagree with you here, Mr. Dweaver. There are people raised in loving homes who grow up with rage & hate in their hearts, and there are those who are subjected to abuse growing up and somehow, someway, retain their innocence and end up as loving & caring people. My father is one of those, actually...

But there have always been people who have rebelled against the norm, whether it be slavery or whatever, on account of believing that norm to be wrong. And, oddly enough, it is usually those people who get the snowball of change rolling...

Dweaver, did you know that Nietzche said this: “Morality [is] the great antidote against a practical and theoretical nihilism.”

Personally, I believe that when you combine every major religion in the world and pick out the ones that all have something in common, it makes up the universal truths. I see love, commitment, trust, and communication are all factors that make up a "good" human being, but paradoxically, those values can also really hurt people when they are lost, removed, or intended to harm. I believe that if they are all used in intentions that are meant not to harm, they can lead to fulfilling and enriching lives

That just may be, Cy, that's a great thought(Y)

Well if there were no rules, this world would not have any humans living on it anymore. No rules on this planet peans death, that's why there are laws and people must follow them.

For example: Traffic lights, the right thign to do is to follow the laws ofthe traffic Lights, the wrong thing to do is not do what the rule says. If there were no lights, then people would think the right thing to do is just go without stopping, and you'd nd up dead.

I agree, Hipn. But the question becomes where do you get the rules from- what should become Law: what's most popular/agreed with, what makes people get along the best, what feels "right," etc...As Cy was saying, it gets subjective when people are trying to figure it out. But to me, that subjectivity doesn't take away from the possiblity that everyone is just trying to figure out what's really "Right," and they are all percieving it differently due to their personalities, life experiences, etc...

Normally right and wrong is determined by a person's beliefs or morals.

Lets say a guy robs a person. The person who got robbed will probably think that the thief who robbed him is a terrible person.

On the other hand, the thief might rob the person because he's desperate for money, and thinks its the right thing to do.

Its all about perspective, and people who do "wrong" things in our eyes are usually things that seem "right" to them.

But seeming right doesn't mean that it is right. I believe there has to be a higher standard. To Hitler, killing Jews seemed right, no doubt. But how could someone say that he was WRONG if morality is just people's opinions? All you could say was, "Well, to him, he was right, and to me, he was wrong, but we can't really say because he's got that right to his opinion of morality..." And how could we ever justify killing someone like Hitler if right and wrong are just perspective? Hitler was following what seemed right to him!

If something is wrong, it's wrong no matter if someone sees you doing it or not.

that's how I feel

Indeed. But the fine difference of waht I said earlier, is that the only reason for murder to be considered 'wrong' is that it benefits the desire of the 'many' to feel protected from such an event happening upon themselves. Hence it has become 'law'.

So are you suggesting that "right" is what makes people feel safe & secure and "wrong" is what doesn't?

"There comes a time when one must do something that is neither safe, nor polite, nor popular, but one must do it, because it is right." -Martin Luther King Jr.

[Andrew]

Warfare affords human beings the chance to forego the notion that killing another human being is wrong because of some noble cause. Basically, we humans can find loopholes in our own morality to suit our needs.

Well, for some people, it would be IMMORAL NOT TO wage war against an evil that is destroying people left & right. They're not "finding loopholes," but it's all part of the sense of moral obligation to fight evil.

It's still finding reason to forego the idea that killing another human being is wrong, justifying something that normally we would consider unjustifiable.

[shadowgrin]

on the other hand is it wrong to hurt someone in order for him not a kill a group of people (1 person for lets say a 100)?

No, it's not wrong because that someone has the intention to kill/hurt other people.
As the Golden Rule said, which is both accepted in Christianity and Buddhism:

"Do unto others what you want others do unto you."

If you're willing to harm/kill others be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

Trivia: Buddha lived before Jesus, so that Golden Rule was just ripped off by Jesus from Buddha. Take that Jebus!

Well, to him, he was right, and to me, he was wrong, but we can't really say because he's got that right to his opinion of morality..." And how could we ever justify killing someone like Hitler if right and wrong are just perspective? Hitler was following what seemed right to him!

Let's say Hitler thought it was "right" for killing millions of Jews, there are consequences for what he did. It would now be "right" for others to kill him because for Hitler it was only "right" to kill Jews. For others who think it was "wrong" they could justify their actions to kill Hitler because what he did was "wrong".
The notion of right and wrong could be easily manipulated to meet one's needs and wants that having a fixed standard doesn't help in anyway. That's why I stated the simple but effective golden rule. If someone kills then I can kill that someone, but if I do kill that someone I'm liable to be possibly killed as well.
(Of course anyone could still kill me, even if I'm not prepared to kill )

Well, for some people, it would be IMMORAL NOT TO wage war against an evil that is destroying people left & right. They're not "finding loopholes," but it's all part of the sense of moral obligation to fight evil.

There are more factors to consider than right or wrong in most situations. I think looking out for oneself also comes into play. Let us use the war example.
Why would I wage war against some "evil country" when going to war is wrong?
Possible justifications to go to war (in the concept of self-protection and interest):
a) Preventing that "evil" to spread and allowing it linger might pose a threat to me in the future.
b) If I turn a blind eye and not help those people, what if that same thing happened to me? Others might not help me because of what I did by ignoring it.
Right or wrong cannot be a pure concept by itself alone, factors play in such as our intrinsic human desires.

There are people raised in loving homes who grow up with rage & hate in their hearts, and there are those who are subjected to abuse growing up and somehow, someway, retain their innocence and end up as loving & caring people.

But there have always been people who have rebelled against the norm, whether it be slavery or whatever, on account of believing that norm to be wrong.

True, the environment we live in play a part in our development as individuals but it is still ourselves that must sort out all the shite and determine what we want to do with the the shite that we retain.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

I strongly disagree with you here, Mr. Dweaver. There are people raised in loving homes who grow up with rage & hate in their hearts, and there are those who are subjected to abuse growing up and somehow, someway, retain their innocence and end up as loving & caring people. My father is one of those, actually...

But there have always been people who have rebelled against the norm, whether it be slavery or whatever, on account of believing that norm to be wrong. And, oddly enough, it is usually those people who get the snowball of change rolling...

Dweaver, did you know that Nietzche said this: “Morality [is] the great antidote against a practical and theoretical nihilism.”

True. But unfortunately, based on statistics alone, those cases are only the rare exceptions that help solidify the rule.

As for Nietzsche, he did not say exactly that. Actually, he did, but that was far from what he meant. In his description of the 'Ubermensch' ('Overman', for lack of a more convincing translation), he stated that the main attribute of that special being is teh ability to FORGE HIS/HER OWN MORALS, REGARDLESS OF SOCIETY'S INCLINATIONS. That is the 'morality' he describes in your quote, and believe me, it is far different that what most people perceiva as 'moral'.

[cyanide]

But seeming right doesn't mean that it is right. I believe there has to be a higher standard. To Hitler, killing Jews seemed right, no doubt. But how could someone say that he was WRONG if morality is just people's opinions? All you could say was, "Well, to him, he was right, and to me, he was wrong, but we can't really say because he's got that right to his opinion of morality..." And how could we ever justify killing someone like Hitler if right and wrong are just perspective? Hitler was following what seemed right to him!

In Hitler's mind, what he's doing was right. In those who follow and believe in Hitler, they share the same common goals in what is "right" to them. However, those people make up an itty bitty fraction of the world population, and as a society, we see these beliefs and actions as "wrong." Ironically, we can't always say society's right. It's a jumble of subjectivity and contradictions, and we may never be sure to know what is right or wrong when it comes to other people, but to ourselves, if we can obey our conscience, then we'll know what is right or wrong to us.

[bullsfan009]

True. But unfortunately, based on statistics alone, those cases are only the rare exceptions that help solidify the rule.

As for Nietzsche, he did not say exactly that. Actually, he did, but that was far from what he meant. In his description of the 'Ubermensch' ('Overman', for lack of a more convincing translation), he stated that the main attribute of that special being is teh ability to FORGE HIS/HER OWN MORALS, REGARDLESS OF SOCIETY'S INCLINATIONS. That is the 'morality' he describes in your quote, and believe me, it is far different that what most people perceiva as 'moral'.

Forging of one's own morals regardless of society's inclinations can be good or bad. To use Hitler again, he forged his morals (there should be an ultimate, pure race & all others should die, and it's his & his followers' duty to see this through, etc...) which were definitely out-of-the-box from society's, which in general views hate & murder as wrong. So was Hitler a 'Ubermensch'/'Overman'? I don't know much about Nietzschian theory, but you really seem into him, Dweaver...how come?

In Hitler's mind, what he's doing was right. In those who follow and believe in Hitler, they share the same common goals in what is "right" to them. However, those people make up an itty bitty fraction of the world population, and as a society, we see these beliefs and actions as "wrong." Ironically, we can't always say society's right. It's a jumble of subjectivity and contradictions, and we may never be sure to know what is right or wrong when it comes to other people, but to ourselves, if we can obey our conscience, then we'll know what is right or wrong to us.

But where do our consciences come from? Why do we even have them? Why do you think that humans have always had this notion inside them of how they "ought" to behave, despite how others around them are behaving?

The way that I see it, you can't prove that there is or isn't an ultimate Right and Wrong. So every individual has to make a choice for themselves:
To say this all is too confusing, so the heck with right & wrong- I'll do what I feel like doing, as long as it doesn't get me in trouble
To say that society's laws are what's right and wrong, so just follow those and it'll be alright
To say that everyone has a right to their own subjective morality, so people should be able to persue with their lives what they feel is Right, regardless of the affects on that person & others
To say "I think that there is an ultimate, best way that people should behave." Now people's ideas of that way may be different, but we all can travel towards this Right way nonetheless, because we know the name of the road that leads there: LOVE. Creative, redemptive, transforming, healing, good will towards all people kind of love.

And we also know when we're on the wrong road, the one called HATE. Because we see the destination of that dark road: destruction, chaos, despair, rampant evil that begets more and more evil.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Forging of one's own morals regardless of society's inclinations can be good or bad. To use Hitler again, he forged his morals (there should be an ultimate, pure race & all others should die, and it's his & his followers' duty to see this through, etc...) which were definitely out-of-the-box from society's, which in general views hate & murder as wrong. So was Hitler a 'Ubermensch'/'Overman'? I don't know much about Nietzschian theory, but you really seem into him, Dweaver...how come?

Maybe Hitler, inside, was a 'liberated' man who did what he forged as 'right' , regardless of what other said of him and his methods. Then again, maybe he was just a weak man who craved for recognition through the fulfilment of his own sick ideas. Th eonly one who knew which of teh two was the truth, is Hitler himself.

Such is the case with every person. Everyone can lie, succesfully or not, to anyone. EXCEPT to himself. No matter what you try to convince yourself of, the truth, YOUR truth to be more specific, will always creep out of teh closet you hid it in, and try to push you to do what is "RIGHT". But the meaning of "RIGHT", differs between individuals.

Was Hitler Ubermensch then? I do not know.. He shows symptoms of it, but I cannot be certain. The only person I can safely describe as Overman or not, is myself.


Now, about 'Good' and 'Evil' , 'Right and 'Wrong', here is some analysis on Nietzsche's work, especially the inspirational (to me, at the very least.. ) "Beyond Good and Evil" : This is a general overview of his work. Specifically about this thread and the point I was trying to make, just read the 'master and slave morality' part. But I would advise reading the whole thing, if you have the time.


CAUTION: VERY long read...

"Much controversy surrounds whether Nietzsche advocated a single or comprehensive philosophical viewpoint. Many charge Nietzsche with propounding contradictory thoughts and ideas. Here are Nietzsche's main ideas.
[edit]

Nihilism and the death of God

After the skepticism in his early works towards the old foundations of philosophy, religion, and morality, Nietzsche experienced the absence of any meaning or purpose to the world and human existence. Nietzsche did not attribute this nihilism to an autonomous and reactive movement against culture; rather, he diagnosed nihilism as a latent presence within the very foundations of European culture, and thus, as a necessary and approaching destiny.

For Nietzsche, nihilism is the outcome of repeated frustrations in the search for meaning. The religious worldview had already suffered a number of challenges from contrary perspectives grounded in philosophical skepticism, modern science (heliocentrism superseding geocentrism, evolution superseding creationism), and internal disputes (Reformation). However, these attempts to replace God with human reason were also inadequate and unjustified.

In writings from notebooks dated from November 1887 to March 1888, Nietzsche described three steps by which 'nihilism as a psychological state' would be reached:

... first, when we have sought a 'meaning' in all events that is not there: so the seeker eventually becomes discouraged. Nihilism, then, is the recognition of the long waste of strength, the agony of the 'in vain', insecurity, the lack of any opportunity to recover and to regain composure -- being ashamed in front of oneself, as if one had 'deceived' oneself all too long.
... secondly, when one has posited a totality, a systemization, indeed any organization in all events, and underneath all events, and a soul that longs to admire and revere has wallowed in the idea of some supreme form of domination and administration ... [M]an has lost the faith in his own value when no infinitely valuable whole works through him; i.e., he conceived such a whole in order to be able to believe in his own value.
Given these two insights, ... an escape remains: to pass sentence on this whole world of becoming as a deception and to invent a world beyond it, a true world. But as soon as man finds out how that world is fabricated solely from psychological needs, and how he has absolutely no right to it, the last form of nihilism comes into being: it includes disbelief in any metaphysical world and forbids itself any belief in a true world.
(The Will to Power, Book I, sec. 12, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann)

Nietzsche sees this intellectual condition as a new challenge to European culture, which has extended itself beyond a sort of point-of-no-return. Nietzsche conceptualizes this with the famous statement, 'God is dead', which appears prominently in The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, suggesting the impending, yet obscure, crisis that European thought faces in the wake of the irreparable disturbances to its traditional foundations. Nietzsche treats this phrase as more than a provocative declaration, but almost reverently, as it represents the potential of a nihilism that arrests growth and progress in the midst of an overwhelming absurdity and meaninglessness:

The greatest recent event -- that 'God is dead', that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable -- is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least, whose eyes -- the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this spectacle, some sun seems to have set and some ancient and profound trust has been turned into doubt; to them our old world must appear daily more like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, 'older'. But in the main one may say: The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means -- and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now impending -- who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth?
(Gay Science, Book V, sec. 343, trans. Walter Kaufmann)

The first instance of the phrase occurs at the beginning of Book III of The Gay Science (section 108), and again prominently in section 125.
[edit]

Amor fati and the eternal recurrence

In response to the constraining and defeating aspects of nihilism, Nietzsche began to seek a sense of bold, cheerful experimentation. Nietzsche seems to identify his own self as the remaining constraint after the death of the Gods, writing that 'the seal of liberation' is 'no longer being ashamed in front of oneself.' (Gay Science, Book III, sec. 275, trans. Walter Kaufmann)

Nietzsche acknowledged that having liberated himself from the Gods and their morality, he has yet to answer for what he is liberated: he suffers as a protagonist without an antagonist. At the beginning of Book IV of The Gay Science, Nietzsche celebrates the new year and the strength he attributes to the month of January. He writes that his 'wish' is:

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who makes things beautiful. Amor fati (love of fate): let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
(Gay Science, Book IV, sec. 276, trans. Walter Kaufmann)

This attitude of creativity and challenge carries Nietzsche further to the idea of 'the eternal recurrence', an intellectual and existential test. Eternal recurrence means that time runs its course and then repeats exactly and infinitely. Thus, the absurdities and pains of life must be endured not only once, but repeatedly and forever. Nietzsche imagines that the nihilist would find this thought torturous, but for one who has learned to be a 'Yes-sayer', it should be bliss. At the end of Book IV of The Gay Science, juxtaposed with what becomes the beginning of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche writes:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence -- even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!'
Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, 'Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?' would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?
(Gay Science, Book IV, sec. 341, trans. Walter Kaufmann)

The eternal recurrence is also discussed prominently in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which Nietzsche wrote after The Gay Science.
[edit]

Overman

There is some controversy over who or what Nietzsche considered an overman (or "superman"; in German, Übermensch). Nietzsche's concept of the overman represented an ideal of an individual that could overcome the forces working against him. Nietzsche appreciated the strength of what he called the herd instinct or slave morality, that is, the masses of subservient people from which arose the morality of re-sentiment (resentment), which later evolved into christian morality. He believed this herd instinct to be an inevitable consequence of mass society, and considered it extremely difficult from which to break free. The overman is the person who can create his or her own values, uninfluenced by societal norms, and who can successfully live according to these self-created values. This is in contrast to the Christian notion that humans are created beings whose purpose is to obey the dictates of their Creator.

Thus the question of whether someone is an overman is not something that can be judged from external criteria; rather it is a matter of individual conscience. One can find examples of those who appeared to be overmen (Caesar, Goethe, Napoleon), which would hint that such an overcoming of self might be possible. But the key question is whether one, personally, can create one's own values and hold oneself responsible for living by them. (In this respect Jesus, though very close to being an overman, was not; for rather than taking responsibility for his own values, he claimed to have received them from God, and he was, Nietzsche argues, essentially a nihilist).

The overman, then, is not defined with respect to how much power one wields over others (although the overman, having overcome himself, will consequently dominate those who have not), but rather to the extent to which one is, in Nietzsche's words, "judge and avenger and victim of one's own law."
[edit]

Master morality and slave morality

Nietzsche argued that there were two types of morality, a master morality that springs actively from the 'noble man' and a slave morality that develops reactively within the weak man. These two moralities are not simple inversions of one another, they are two different value systems; master morality fits actions into a scale of 'good' or 'bad' whereas slave morality fits actions into a scale of 'good' or 'evil'.

Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. For these men the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the 'good', then the idea of 'bad' develops in opposition to it. (The Genealogy of Morality, First Essay, Section 11) He said: "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, "what is harmful to me is harmful in itself"; it knows itself to be that which first accords honor to things; its is value-creating." (Beyond Good and Evil)

Slave morality begins in those people who are weak, uncertain of themselves, oppressed and abused. The essence of slave morality is utility: the good is what is most useful for the community as a whole. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power vis-a-vis the strong by treating those qualities that are valued by the powerful as "evil," and those qualities that enable sufferers to endure their lot as "good." Thus patience, humility, pity, submissiveness to authority, and the like, are considered good.

Slave morality begins in a ressentiment that turns creative and gives birth to values. (Ressentiment was a term coined by Nietzsche to describe the feeling of the weak, unhealthy and ugly towards those who have fared better in life.) The slave regards the virtues of beauty, power, strength and wealth as 'evil' in an act of revenge against those who have them in abundance. (The Genealogy of Morality, First Essay, Section 10) Slave morality is therefore a reactionary morality because 'good' does not spring creatively from the individual but develops as a negation of the values of the powerful. The noble person conceives of goodness first and later determines what is 'bad' while the slave conceives of 'evil' first and fashions his own conception of 'good' in opposition to this.

One of the main themes in Nietzsche's work is that ancient Roman society was grounded in master morality, and that this morality disappeared as the slave morality of Christianity spread through ancient Rome. Nietzsche was concerned with the state of European culture during his lifetime and therefore focused much of his analysis on the history of master and slave morality within Europe. Occasional references, however, also suggest that he meant these terms to be applied to other societies.
[edit]

Christianity as an institution and Jesus

In Nietzsche's book the Anti-Christ, Nietzsche fights against how Christianity has become an ideology set forth by institutions like churches, instead of representing the life of Jesus. It is important, for Nietzsche, to distinguish between the religion of Christianity and the person of Jesus. Nietzsche attacked Christian religion as it was represented by churches and institutions for what he called its "transvaluation" of healthy instinctive values. He went beyond agnostic and atheistic thinkers of the Enlightenment, who felt that Christianity was simply untrue. He claimed that it may have been deliberately propagated as a subversive religion (a "psychological warfare weapon" or what some would call a "memetic virus") within the Roman Empire by the Apostle Paul as a form of covert revenge for the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during the Jewish War.

Nietzsche contrasts the Christians with Jesus, whom he greatly admires. Nietzsche argues that Jesus transcended the moral influences of his time by creating his own set of values. As such Jesus represents a step towards the overman. Ultimately, however, Nietzsche claims that, unlike the overman, who embraces life, Jesus denied reality in favor of his "kingdom of God." Jesus' refusal to defend himself, and subsequent death, were logical consequences of this total disengagement. Nietzsche then analyzes the history of Christianity, finding it to be a progressively grosser distortion of the teachings of Jesus. He criticizes the early Christians for turning the story of Jesus into a story of redemption, and misusing his teachings to gain power over the masses; by the 19th century, Christianity had, to his mind, become completely worldly--a corruption of something which, Nietzsche felt, was itself nihilistic.
[edit]

The will to power - [i]Key to this thread

Upon his death, Nietzsche's sister compiled (and some suspect, wrote parts of) a book of Nietzsche's writings entitled The Will To Power. This encapsulates a portion of Nietzsche's thought in which he advocated the point of view that all things, actions, and motivations are driven by a will to power. Especially relevant to this observation are Nietzsche's roots in Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer posited a will to live, in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to dominate others, and to make them weaker. Thus, Schopenhauer's will to live is just a consequence of a larger will to power.

One possible interpretation of "will to power" is that it is a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that he believed was the basic driving force of nature. This interpretation would suggest that he believed it to be the fundamental causal power in the world, the driving force of all natural phenomena and the dynamic to which all other causal powers could be reduced. That is, according to this theory, Nietzsche in part hoped the will to power could be a "theory of everything," providing the ultimate foundations for explanations of everything from whole societies, to individual organisms, down to mere lumps of matter. In contrast to the "theories of everything" attempted in physics, Nietzsche's was teleological in nature. However, Nietzsche's disavowal of teleology in general suggests that this might not be the best way to interpret what he meant by the "will to power."

Nietzsche perhaps developed the will to power concept furthest with regard to living organisms, and it is there that the concept is perhaps easiest to understand. There, the will to power is taken as an animal's most fundamental instinct or drive, even more fundamental than the act of self-preservation; the latter is but an epiphenomenon of the former. This interpretation would align itself with a Neo-Kantian epistemology. That is, the will to power, in this view, is the basic means through which living things "interpret" or interact with the world, and, in this sense, the world would be "will to power, and nothing else besides," not in metaphysical terms, but epistemological.

Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength — life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results. — Beyond Good and Evil

The will to power is something like the desire to exert one's will in self-overcoming, although this "willing" may be unconscious. Indeed, it is unconscious in all non-human beings; it was the frustration of this will that first caused man to become conscious at all. The philosopher and art critic Arthur C. Danto says that "aggression" is at least sometimes an approximate synonym. However, Nietzsche's ideas of aggression are almost always meant as aggression toward oneself — a sublimation of the brute's aggression — as the energy a person motivates toward self-mastery. In any case, since the will to power is fundamental, any other drives are to be reduced to it; the "will to survive" (i.e. the survival instinct) that biologists (at least in Nietzsche's day) thought to be fundamental, for example, was in this light a manifestation of the will to power.

My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (—its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on. — Beyond Good and Evil s.636, Walter Kaufmann translation.

Not just instincts but also higher level behaviors (even in humans) were to be reduced to the will to power. This includes both such apparently harmful acts as physical violence, lying, and domination, on one hand, and such apparently non-harmful acts as gift-giving, love, and praise of the other. In Beyond Good and Evil, he claims that philosophers' "will to truth" (i.e., their apparent desire to dispassionately seek objective truth) is actually nothing more than a manifestation of their will to power; this will can be life-affirming or a manifestation of nihilism, but it is will to power all the same.

[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant — not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life. — Beyond Good and Evil s.259, Walter Kaufmann translation.

As indicated above, the will to power is meant to explain more than just the behavior of an individual person or animal. The will to power can also be the explanation for why water flows as it does, why plants grow, and why various societies, enclaves, and civilizations behave as they do.

It should be noted, however, that a biological interpretation of Will to Power such as this is but one of many possible - indeed, Nietzsche scholarship is replete with interpretations, largely due to Nietzsche's elusive style. Others might suggest that the will to power is not really as central a concept in Nietzsche's thought. Indeed, it appears that Nietzsche himself might have agreed, when he suggests, in Ecce Homo, that his notion of eternal recurrence of the same is his most central thought, and the central theme of his most famous work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

According to de:Mazzino Montinari, who edited in the 1960s Nietzsche's full collection, Elizabeth and Alfred Bäumler's transcription were highly suspicious, amounting to an effectual case of revisionism, which led to Nazi interpretations of Nietzsche. Montinari, the first one to have access to all of Nietzsche's archives, pointed out how Nietzsche's sister and Bäumler had created a Will of Power out of various extracts. Gilles Deleuze himself saluted Montinari's work declaring:

"Tant qu'il ne fut pas possible aux chercheurs les plus sérieux d'accéder à l'ensemble des manuscrits de Nietzsche, on savait seulement de façon vague que La Volonté de puissance n'existait pas comme telle telle (...) Nous souhaitons que le jour nouveau, apporté par les inédits, soit celui du retour à Nietzsche

("As long that it was not possible for the most serious researcher to accede to all of Nietzsche's manuscripts, we only knew in a loose way that the Will of Power did not exist as such (...) We only wish that the new dawn brought on by those unpublished work will be the time of return to Nietzsche [1] [/i]"

[hipn]

How bout you summaries it?

[Jackal]

What a bloody waste of a good keyboard.

[Jackal_]

What a bloody waste of a good keyboard.

bet you're also a waste of bloody skin...























durunk as fuck so fuck you hahaaha new ears yeave ahahaha

[shadowgrin]

To D-Weaver:
Copy and paste or did you type that all?
If you did type that all, were you alone in the house so you typed all of that thing to satiate your boredom?