(no subject)
Friedrich Nietzsche's moral theory is similar to a moral principle called Determinism. This principle, which does support Nietzche's own, states that people can only do what they actually do; no other action could have been possible. In other words, whatever happens happens and had to happen. Thus, an agent cannot be criticized for his actions because there was no choice on his part. The most common analogy used is that of the sheep and the wolf. The wolf will kill a sheep and devour it, then move on, leaving the others behind to live in fear. These surviving sheep would criticize the wolf for having murdered their brother. However, according to Nietzsche, the wolf is not responsible for his actions because the sheep had to be eaten by him; it was, obviously, in the wolf's nature to kill that sheep and eat it. There were no other possibilities.
Extending said analogy to human actions, a tyrant may oppress his underlings at will because that is the nature of the tyrant. He is not responsible for what he does because that is what has to happen since it is what is happening. This is the concept of "noble morality," where the good is classified by the characteristics of "better people," and the bad is whatever is base, or inferior. Those whom the tyrant oppresses universally fall into the "slave morality," a view supported by Christianity (Nietzsche does not mention Judaism, however, since his work was to compare Christianity to Judaism, thus proving Christianity 'sucks.' He was antisemitic), Kant, Socialism, and anarchism. This morality is best summed up into an excerpt from "The Sermon on the Mount" from the Gospel according to Matthew:
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth...blessed are the merciful...those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake... you, when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you.... If any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have you cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
Nietzsche hates this morality. He had frequently called it "dangerous to European civilization," and considered it morally corrupt and only devised as a way to unjustly condemn those whom are better people. According to him, the "slave morality" is not passive and loving as Christians and Kant--whose theories were a philosophized Protestantism--would place it, nor is it equal as Socialists and anarchists would call it. It is an aggressive, hateful stance in which all those who are of the better caste are demonized merely for doing what is natural to them.
His form of determinism was claimed to be universal ethical theory, not only applying to a certain group. He states that nobles cannot be condemned for committing "murder, arson, rape and torture, exhilarated and undisturbed of soul, as if it were no more than a student's prank." It is all they could have done since it is natural for these "better men" to oppress those whom are weak.
But he contradicts himself in this belief. He condemns the "slaves" for being weak and thusly morally corrupt for following their own sense of morality. However, he does not address the fact that they could not possibly be morally corrupt because they are not responsible for their actions since their actions are not voluntary. An action must be voluntary for one to be responsible for it. Their position as "slaves," weak and oppressed, is that only thing that could possibly happen because that is their position in reality. Thusly, they are not responsible for being oppressed, raped, or tortured, just as the "nobles" are not responsible for oppressing, raping, or torturing. Or so one would think having logically thought this through. Nietzsche, however, holds firmly onto his statements that the "slaves" are indeed the ones responsible when they are raped and murdered. One would wonder how his reasoning would end but it merely comes full circle and goes nowhere. He does not address it further so as to avoid this circle. His contradiction does not seem to worry him in the slightest.
And in the interest of sounding less pretentious: Nietzsche was an asshat motherfucker.
Extending said analogy to human actions, a tyrant may oppress his underlings at will because that is the nature of the tyrant. He is not responsible for what he does because that is what has to happen since it is what is happening. This is the concept of "noble morality," where the good is classified by the characteristics of "better people," and the bad is whatever is base, or inferior. Those whom the tyrant oppresses universally fall into the "slave morality," a view supported by Christianity (Nietzsche does not mention Judaism, however, since his work was to compare Christianity to Judaism, thus proving Christianity 'sucks.' He was antisemitic), Kant, Socialism, and anarchism. This morality is best summed up into an excerpt from "The Sermon on the Mount" from the Gospel according to Matthew:
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth...blessed are the merciful...those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake... you, when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you.... If any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have you cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
Nietzsche hates this morality. He had frequently called it "dangerous to European civilization," and considered it morally corrupt and only devised as a way to unjustly condemn those whom are better people. According to him, the "slave morality" is not passive and loving as Christians and Kant--whose theories were a philosophized Protestantism--would place it, nor is it equal as Socialists and anarchists would call it. It is an aggressive, hateful stance in which all those who are of the better caste are demonized merely for doing what is natural to them.
His form of determinism was claimed to be universal ethical theory, not only applying to a certain group. He states that nobles cannot be condemned for committing "murder, arson, rape and torture, exhilarated and undisturbed of soul, as if it were no more than a student's prank." It is all they could have done since it is natural for these "better men" to oppress those whom are weak.
But he contradicts himself in this belief. He condemns the "slaves" for being weak and thusly morally corrupt for following their own sense of morality. However, he does not address the fact that they could not possibly be morally corrupt because they are not responsible for their actions since their actions are not voluntary. An action must be voluntary for one to be responsible for it. Their position as "slaves," weak and oppressed, is that only thing that could possibly happen because that is their position in reality. Thusly, they are not responsible for being oppressed, raped, or tortured, just as the "nobles" are not responsible for oppressing, raping, or torturing. Or so one would think having logically thought this through. Nietzsche, however, holds firmly onto his statements that the "slaves" are indeed the ones responsible when they are raped and murdered. One would wonder how his reasoning would end but it merely comes full circle and goes nowhere. He does not address it further so as to avoid this circle. His contradiction does not seem to worry him in the slightest.
And in the interest of sounding less pretentious: Nietzsche was an asshat motherfucker.