hide

Read Next

Having Your Own Ethics is Lonely

Stefanie Zobus just wrote up "Be Yourself (Or, on things "good" and "bad")." It's a nice post. She talks about the underlying philosophy of Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil," which is really a remarkable work.

Stefanie advocates you make your own ethics and beliefs, because good and evil are just defined by consensus.

Things people usually consider “good” or “bad” are determined by consensus. In different cultures or contexts those are different, too; heck, even within one. However, just because a number of people agree on something doesn’t make it right. How about being sane in an insane world? Foucault wrote something nice about that in his “Madness and Civilization.” Besides, some centuries ago everyone thought water was the cause of diseases and sought to avoid it as much as possible, while in fact the opposite is the case. Water was seen as “bad.”

Who is to say that to pursue this or that is “good” or “bad”? I don’t think anything can be said to be “good” or “bad” in the absolute sense. I come to despise those terms. They make people do things they do not want to do, be who they do not want to be just because something is considered “good” or “bad” in their environment or among their peers. The terms manipulate people on reasons that lack or are not spelled out. “Good” and “bad” are stand-in reasons without real content people give when they don’t have real ones. They are tags that hide what’s really behind things.

I responded in comment on her site -

Comment: "The Last Blow to Human Hegemony"

Two great comments on "Having Your Own Ethics is Lonely." First is by Roy, thought-provoking, and also, I laughed a lot at how his final sentence wraps it all up:

Hello. Your comment to Stefanie about creating your own set of values and ethic being lonely, look pretty much like the concept of the Ubermensch from Nietzsche. So I'll say that anyone following this path is on the right path to the next level of human development. And I'll go farther on this. I think that Nietzche closed the loop on human nature. Copernicus discovered that we were not the center of the world which was a blow to human hegemony. Then came Darwin stating that human was not special and we are just another can of animal. This was a second blow on human hegemony. Then came Freud stating that human is not even the master of his thoughts and impulses. Which was yet just another blow to human hegemony. And to finalize it all. Here comes Nietzche stating that there is not a single system of ethics that bind us all. No human system and certainly not heavenly system of ethic stands. Which to me is the last blow on human hegemony.

Have a nice day.

Then Ryan replies -

I disagree somewhat with Roy's comment. Humans are special, what separates us from other animals is the ability to reason. Its true that we posess animal instincts like all creatures on this planet, and so by nature, man is corrupt. I believe there are ethics that bind all people, like the persute of being happy through the possession of freedom, wich requires discipline over ones own actions, wich requires some form of ethical standards. Just because you think it, does not mean you must do it. If you have no disapline, you become a slave to others, like too much debt for instance, you feel the shame of failure when the bill arrives. But do you work to solve it, or make it worse? The point is that we all fail some time or another, but its how you deal with your failures that can make you a good or bad person.

No bio set
Guest
Vote
Advanced options  
at
Close