|
|
|
|
|
|
by openknot
1465 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not a philosopher or a Nietzsche expert, but Nietzsche wrote about this at length in his book "Beyond Good and Evil." It's been a while since I read the book (surface-level Wikipedia summary link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil), but the argument he advanced was to frame morality as a means of people who lack power to feel superior over people who do have power. For example, he speculates that gluttony may be seen as a sin, because it was a way for disempowered people to feel superiority over people who had an abundance of food and wealth. If this frame is true (a big if), then one can be guided to not care about morality, and do what is in one's best interest. Of course, there are good psychological reasons for why it is a bad reason to throw away morality. If one's identity is tied to being a good person, doing bad acts in conflict with one's identity can cause a lot of distress. There is also a "hedonistic treadmill" where one gets used to more and more wealth, and how additional wealth at a certain point doesn't make someone happier. Lastly, there are society reasons for why morality is important (e.g. the Golden Rule as you wrote); a low-trust society where no one is moral is not a healthy society to live in. Counter-arguments aside, there is quite a bit of writing, also by philosophers, who argue that morality does exist for dominance alone (though I disagree with this, largely from a psychological rather than a philosophical perspective, due to lacking background to make rigorous-enough philosophical arguments). |
|
|
These aren't counter arguments to what I said. They don't require concepts of objective good and evil, as I pointed out in my original comment and follow-up.