Nietzsche’s Morality Isn’t

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.

We can.

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


5 thoughts on “Nietzsche’s Morality Isn’t

  1. The trouble with appending morality to survival is the subject. Who/Whom? Even if we accept Curt’s implicit proposition that survival for all humanity is best achieved through the universal adoption of common law and western markets, the antecedent question is that of means. Means, after all, inherently change the subject. Humanity per se becomes constituent parts which must be managed and cajoled into cooperation. As each part is pushed into place, friction abounds. Even if the end-state is as near to perfect as one can imagine, the interregnum is bound to be cataclysmic. This could be moral. I largely agree with Curt’s premises with respect to truth, law, and the scientific method. But I don’t think it universalizes with respect to survival.


  2. That’s a nice reappropriation of N, but I don’t really think that it’s a dressing what he saying. But you might be responding to what people say about them but I think if you really read him as a whole creature, as opposed to some central thinker that’s putting out some sort of argument for people to discuss, I don’t think your definitions would hold water. 🙂


    1. This was not an attempt to criticize the spirit of Nietzsche’s works. I agree with some of his ideas. However, I think that operational morality is something different from what he discusses as “morality”. So I had to make a distinction. You can always comment on the original article as well. I did not write it; it’s clearly a re-blog.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s