4 ms·
I don't care who said it (My apologies, I'm always a bit critical of throwing in famous names in a discussion, the arguments should count for themselves.). Inte
by rjprins 17y ago
I don't care who said it (My apologies, I'm always a bit critical of throwing in famous names in a discussion, the arguments should count for themselves.). Internal considerations is really all there is.
If you'd take the extreme ego central perspective, you get the double moral: "I can do anything I want, you may only do things that are beneficial to me."
Obviously this doesn't work in society, and even for the strongest individual this becomes: "You should do things that do not hurt me, and I will do everything so as to not make you hurt me."
This may be further fine-tuned in a closely knit society:"If society benefits, I benefit, therefor everybody should do what benefits society".
Basically collective morality comes forth from selfish morality. And when it does not, it is 'naturally selected', e.g. as the French royalty which was beheaded by the plebs or more commonly, the governmental policing of individuals.
I wouldn't say there is any inherent good or bad in acting on strength/confidence or fear/envy. And ethics that arise from those feelings are also neither good nor bad. Some rules are more capable of continuing than others.
e.g. The 'serial-killer'-morale has less chance than the 'pacifist'-morale. This makes pacifism 'better', but not something inherently 'good'.
- miked 17y ago>> I don't care who said it (My apologies, I'm always a bit critical of throwing in famous names in a discussion, the arguments should count for themselves.). Internal considerations is really all there is. Agreed. I'm not citing authority, I'm giving credit where credit is due. >> I wouldn't say there is any inherent good or bad in acting on strength/confidence or fear/envy. And ethics that arise from those feelings are also neither good nor bad. Well, if we're going to hash out the basis of morality we're going to need a few more pixels. I'm not sure I agree with Nietzsche on this. I am certain that when people are scared, resentful, or envious, they can do a lot of damage. I'm also certain, based on 53 years of living, that people who are happy and confident tend to spread a lot more joy around than those who are resentful. Misery not only loves company, it creates and reinforces norms that spread misery. >> Basically collective morality comes forth from selfish morality. I'm not sure where you mean by this, but it's worth knowing that Hilter's National Socialist German Worker's Party stamped the slogan "The collective good over the individual good" on their coins. Want people to obey you, work for you, and die for you? Establish a morality that doing what you want instead of what the nation's leaders want (who naturally claim to represent the collective good) is bad. Or as our current Vice-President says, "unpatriotic".
- jimbokun 17y ago" I'm also certain, based on 53 years of living, that people who are happy and confident tend to spread a lot more joy around than those who are resentful." Maybe happy, confident people have more to be joyful about, and less to be resentful of, than people with less reason to be happy and confident? (That sounds like a tautology, which is kind of my point.) If your world view is shaped growing up in the slums of Mumbai, vs. growing up in an upper middle class American and getting an Ivy League education, are you more or less likely to be happy, confident, and joyful, or full of resentment?