The Funny "Worshipping" of Nietzsche

[Aetixintro]

When in fact the "worshippers" can't show for any credible ethics system that is all good or at least not evil beyond Kantianism!

One should remember that Ethics is indeed the description of good to be carried out as morality. While Christianity is most excellent, we now attribute the best Ethics to Kantianism, in my opinion, no other ethics to this quality described to this extent.

Some people, especially the Atheists, brag about how excellent they are in being both ethically minded and moral in life, yet they never want to reveal what ethics they believe in or credible solutions to existing problems in Applied Ethics that they wish to win people's hearts and minds for!

One clear case that has won people's hearts and minds is the human rights, UDHR, well within exactly the Kantianism.

So the challenge is right here. I bet you (who oppose Kantianism/Christian Ethics) can't follow!

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_(book)

Cheers!

(I'll come back with some more to make it crystal clear, but the essential words are above and scope is thus given.)

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by Aetixintro]

Do you have a problem with the whole concept of human rights, or just the substantive issues asserted by the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

Some people, especially the Atheists...

Some people, especially some theists (you are an example of one), make claims about atheists that have nothing to do with real atheists. Unsupportable claims ( yours is an example of one) are meaningless.

Your irrational bias against atheists proves nothing but that you have an irrational bias against atheists. Sadly, you share the same irrational bias many theists have against atheists.

Gladly, many rational human beings are beginning to recognize the emptiness of the claims theists such as yourself make.

[bluethread]

Some people, especially the Atheists...

Some people, especially some theists (you are an example of one), make claims about atheists that have nothing to do with real atheists. Unsupportable claims ( yours is an example of one) are meaningless.

Your irrational bias against atheists proves nothing but that you have an irrational bias against atheists. Sadly, you share the same irrational bias many theists have against atheists.

Gladly, many rational human beings are beginning to recognize the emptiness of the claims theists such as yourself make.

That is a fair enough response. So, are you an atheist and, if so, what is your basis for morality and how is it derived?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Aetixintro]

Do you have a problem with the whole concept of human rights, or just the substantive issues asserted by the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

Best wishes, 2RM.

It does say:
"One clear case that has won people's hearts and minds is the human rights, UDHR, well within exactly the Kantianism."

Now, what is your issue?

[Aetixintro]

Some people, especially the Atheists...

Some people, especially some theists (you are an example of one), make claims about atheists that have nothing to do with real atheists. Unsupportable claims ( yours is an example of one) are meaningless.

Your irrational bias against atheists proves nothing but that you have an irrational bias against atheists. Sadly, you share the same irrational bias many theists have against atheists.

Gladly, many rational human beings are beginning to recognize the emptiness of the claims theists such as yourself make.

You do not seem to address the OP? What is your opinion of Nietzschean ethics? Isn't it so that Christian/Theist ethics go well together with Kantianism? So, if Atheists are often citing moral relativism (and they do!) then isn't this kind of ethics inferior to Kantianism in terms of plausibility toward actually describing a wholly good ethics?

Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism - Moral relativism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism - (Superior) Kantianism

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by Aetixintro]

Do you have a problem with the whole concept of human rights, or just the substantive issues asserted by the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

Best wishes, 2RM.

It does say:
"One clear case that has won people's hearts and minds is the human rights, UDHR, well within exactly the Kantianism."

Now, what is your issue?

Hmmm. Still waiting on an answer, but for what it's worth, to try to move the conversation on, my position is as follows:

1) I think 'human rights' exist only when they are enshrined in law, and have no real ontology besides that, other than as wistful pipe-dreams.
2) Whether human rights should exist in law is a moral determination, not specifically supported or rejected by Kant. The ideas, for example, that humans should always be treated as ends, and never as means to ends, and that we should act only according to that maxim that we can, at the same time, will to be universal law, do not explicitly validate the concept of human rights. But they do suggest that Kant may have some considerable sympathy with the development of such rights, and their implementation, as asserted by the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I might add that I find the UN declaration a wholly positive, optimistic document, and look forward to the day when every nation on earth endorses it, and legislates it for their own jurisdiction.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

That is a fair enough response. So, are you an atheist and,...

How would the answer to this question change the accuracy of my response?

...if so, what is your basis for morality and how is it derived?

How would the answer to this question change the accuracy of my response?

[Tcg]

Some people, especially the Atheists...

You do not seem to address the OP?

Given that the quote above was and is part of your OP, I quite clearly addressed your OP. Are you suggesting the quote I addressed is not part of your OP? Are you suggesting I misquoted you? If the answer to either of these questions is, "yes", please provide evidence to support your claim.

[jgh7]

I'm taking some key points I saw in the Nietzsche Wiki article from the section The "slave revolt" in morals Nietzsche distinguishes between two moral systems: Good and bad (master morality), good and evil (slave morality).

Master Morality
To be "good" was to be happy and to have the things related to happiness: wealth, strength, health, power, etc. To be "bad" was to be like the slaves the aristocracy ruled over: poor, weak, sick, pathetic—an object of pity or disgust rather than hatred.

Slave Morality
"Slave morality" comes about as a reaction to master-morality. Here, value emerges from the contrast between good and evil: good being associated with other-worldliness, charity, piety, restraint, meekness, and submission; and evil seen as worldly, cruel, selfish, wealthy, and aggressive.


------

Nietzsche viewed slave morality as inferior. He thought it was mainly just a way for the "slave" type people to feel as though they have overcome their status and are now equal to "master" type people, thus they no longer feel ashamed of themselves. In doing so, it forces the "master" type people to suppress their uniqueness and hide behind guilt.

------

While I do find Nietzsche's philosophy to be rather silly for the most part. I do understand to some degree where he is coming from. We should be weary not to hide behind guilt if we are exceptional in some area, and we should use our abilities to their fullest even if it means jealousy or criticism from others.