Nietzsche is determined to take on every name of note. I wonder how old he was when he understood that he really was the smartest one in every room.
Next, Schopenhauer, whom he quotes from his book The Grand Problems of Morals: “The principle, the fundamental proposition on whose contents all moral philosophers are really agreed is this: “Hurt no one; rather, help all as much as you can.” Schopenhauer argues that this is “the proposition for which all moralists endeavor to find the rational foundation.”
Nietzsche thinks that all such moralists “still talk like children and little old women.” He calls Schopenhauer’s proposition “insipidly false and sentimental.”
Instead, Nietzsche asserts that the fundamental principle of the world “is the will to power.” He asserts that “a living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength; life itself is will to power.”
In contrast, the ideals of good and evil are ephemeral because they change depending upon culture, circumstance and necessity.
What is left then is the individual who is superior in intellect and courage asserting his or her willpower to dominate, and in doing so, moving beyond traditional definitions of good and evil relevant for the time and into a version of morality that he or she declares to be true.
Nietzsche understands where this might lead when he issues his famous warning: “If you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you.” And this too: “Madness is rare in individuals, but in a group, parties, peoples and ages, it is the rule.”
Historical and contemporary examples of both of these precepts are everywhere to be found.
Nietzsche does not advocate domination as cruelty. He does not believe the superior man or woman (he was a terrible misogynist) is allowed to do anything at all – murder, steal, etc. There are to be self-imposed limits.
Instead, this hero must restrain him or herself with a cultivated judgment, a kind of quiet intelligence allied with decency.
He becomes fuzzy in his final conclusions. Where is this superior person to find examples of such judgment? Nietzsche never defines goodness, purposely so, but then how is one to know if what one is doing is good? Or evil?
The answer I’ve tried to formulate is to articulate first principles that could survive great stress.
Place children before adults. Murder is always wrong. Vengeance destroys both the recipient and he who seeks it. Choose kindness wherever possible. Defend the weak from the strong. Embrace courage and humility as essential virtues. Be polite. Finally, believe in what Blanche says, “Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable thing in my opinion.”
I know these offerings abound in logical problems and loads of exceptions. They are grievously imperfect. Let me offer this: We have to make our way, I think, with what we make each day, and thus I try to live using these threads to weave a definition of good and evil.
