beyond good and evil

I've read a part of this book. I'm not much of a philosopher. I really don't know the details on the different arguments. I just act or think on whats there. I have been in search of the truth. I don't know why but thats just it. In my journey I discovered that every individual have their own set thoughts on whats right and wrong. so how could there be a universal truth to what right and wrong. the only truth I see is the things that an individual wants and does not want. If thats the case then the truth is within us? I mean we have our own version of the truth? any objection or reaction is welcome .

I agree completely.

I think it was H.G. Wells who said this but I am not sure.

"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, there are consequences."

We make rational judgements of good and bad, for example a ripe or rotten apple, but these judgements spill over to our emotional judgements.

So for example, if someone gives you a really ripe, juicy apple, how would you feel? And if someone gives you a rotten apple how would you feel?

In paganism there is no black or white magic, magic is like a force like electricity, it can either be used to power our homes or it can be used to electricute someone. It depends on the user's intention that makes some magic better done than other magic. Do you see what I mean.

Blessings

Blessings

Sebbi

I agree, Sebbi. I suppose I might modify that quotation to read:
"There are no judgements; there are only consequences."

i think that might be a good way of looking at it: "no rewards or punishments, only natural consiquencs"

some consiquences may be more desireable then others, though again that may often be a matter of personal preferance.
fairness may be somewhere between difficult and impossible to judge, but bennifit and harm, may be more or less readily and objectively observable. not always perhaps, but yet quite often.
this is not to say the existence of causality does not itself imply a kind of responsibility
i believe such concepts as good and bad or good and evil were invented to simplify trying to explain this to those who don't get it or try to refuse to, and that they may have been invented with the best of intentions
so it becomes not a matter of do whatever you like, but rather do what you would prefer the consiquences of. the observable natural and objective consiquences that is, whatever other kind we may or may not choose to speculate about.

Originally Posted by Sebbi

I agree completely.

I think it was H.G. Wells who said this but I am not sure.

"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, there are consequences."

We make rational judgements of good and bad, for example a ripe or rotten apple, but these judgements spill over to our emotional judgements.

So for example, if someone gives you a really ripe, juicy apple, how would you feel? And if someone gives you a rotten apple how would you feel?

In paganism there is no black or white magic, magic is like a force like electricity, it can either be used to power our homes or it can be used to electricute someone. It depends on the user's intention that makes some magic better done than other magic. Do you see what I mean.

Blessings

Blessings

Sebbi

How do you define "better" in such a framework? In an atheistic system, morality is an absurd concept, as Nietzsche observed. The same is true of pantheism:

http://www.antithesis.com/features/dignity.html

""In an atheistic system, morality is an absurd concept, as Nietzsche observed.""

It is equally absurd to think that anything that comes from God can be moral, especially when murder has been justified in the name of God. Just look at all the horrendous acts that have been carried out in the name of God - morality is an absurd concept in a theistic system.

The morality that Nietzsche attacks is what he regards as not moral, however he was really a great moralist despite the fact that he liked to think of himself as amoral.

Christian morality, as Nietzsche conceived of it, was a morality based on resentiment, wickedness, jealousy, contempt for life. That which was overflowing with life and power, that which possessed wealth, etc. became evil in the eyes of Christianity out of the oppressed Christian's jealousy. In turn, the weak, the sickly, the deformed, became saints in Christianitie's morality of resentiment. The earth and life are to be despised under Christian morality.

Nietzsche makes a distinction between two types of morality. Slave morality and Master morality. Christianity, by and large, is a form of slave morality. What is required for slave morality to develop is hostile external conditions, oppressive conditions.

Christianity is essentially jealous of anyone who has turned out well.

Existence exists, morals do not exist in reality but only as a social construct of man. Therefore it should be questioned who is creating the morals and for what purpose or aim.

It took Nietzsche many volumes to say the equivalent of these two sentences.

Originally Posted by Andy73

It is equally absurd to think that anything that comes from God can be moral, especially when murder has been justified in the name of God. Just look at all the horrendous acts that have been carried out in the name of God - morality is an absurd concept in a

Originally Posted by Andy73

theistic system.

Are you not familiar with the ad hominem fallacy?

Christian morality, as Nietzsche conceived of it, was a morality based on resentiment, wickedness, jealousy, contempt for life. That which was overflowing with life and power, that which possessed wealth, etc. became evil in the eyes of Christianity out of the oppressed Christian's jealousy. In turn, the weak, the sickly, the deformed, became saints in Christianitie's morality of resentiment. The earth and life are to be despised under Christian morality.

Misguided ascetic Christians might have taught this, but it is certainly not biblical. God hates greed and oppression because they deprive the poor of good things, not because wealth is inherently evil. However, it is seductive and deceptive, as it tends to harden one’s heart toward God and others. We are not to cling to our wealth, since it ultimately belongs to God and should be used to bless others.

Existence exists, morals do not exist in reality but only as a social construct of man. Therefore it should be questioned who is creating the morals and for what purpose or aim.

If morals are purely a social construct, then they are entirely arbitrary. Therefore, "good" and "evil" are literally meaningless terms. That’s why I said that morality is an absurd concept in an atheistic framework. It provides no objective basis for condemning the holocaust or the gulag. "Might" truly makes "right."

""Therefore, "good" and "evil" are literally meaningless terms.""

Most of reality is a social construct, but that does not make it meaningless. In other words most realities are social, dependent upon man's interaction with himself. Intrinsically, the universe is niether benign nor hostile but merely exists.

The statement: "If there is no God, everything is permited" really does not make sense because God and religion have already been used as an excuse for just about every horror imaginable. If there is no God, how would anything more be permited than God has already permited?

I just don't see any evidence of morals existing in the fabric of reality independent of the mind. Not meaning to bash religion or anything, nothing personal.