A post for clarification.
Nietzche had little understanding of law(dispute resolution), and less understanding if not no understanding of its opposite: economics (cooperation). When he says ‘morality’ he means ‘convention’. and in that sense, convention may or may not survive moral scrutiny. That does not mean that there are no moral statements. It’s easy to define them.
The question is instead whether moral action serves the desired purpose. Just as whether violence serves the desired purpose. Just as whether deception serves the desired purpose.
Convention places no limits on man other than the cost he bears for abridging it.
Not all our purposes need be moral, as long as the cost or benefit of immoral action is worth it to us.
That is different from saying that we cannot determine moral actions.
But whether we DESIRE COOPERATION or not is a test of morality. Whether something suites our PURPOSES or not is…
View original post 425 more words