You're missing an S there. But there is a way for everyone to be Ubermensch: in the inside of their own heads.
![]()
Validity? By what standard? What are the criteria to validate or invalidate a moral system? What does it even mean, for a moral system to be valid?
And might does not make right; rightness is up to the subjective judgment of every sentient being, and they might disagree. Neither does right make might; it's not because you comply with your own moral code (or anyone else's) that you're guaranteed to have it your way.
However, right needs might; if you want to impose your morality on the world, you had better have the assets and leverage to back it up, and that includes force.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Then what is the use of holding morality if it does not affect anything? If nothing is right or wrong, then why do societies have laws?
How does one function in a world where all is void?
edited 18th Apr '13 8:33:20 AM by Icarael
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."Lsws are a matter of practicality. They're usually designed to overlap with most people's moralities at the same time, but it need not be so. Laws exist to make the world predictable: they ensure that when you cross a street under a green light, you can expect that no car will slam you from the side, that when you lend money to someone you will get it back, and that when you buy a house you can sell it back, and live there in the mean time.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
As for your second point, just be The Anti-Nihilist. It's easy, and it feels good.
Can't get anything done, either. Dead people are kinda useless. Burying them is an expense, and leaving them unburied is a recipe for epidemics
.
edited 18th Apr '13 8:43:22 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I was The Anti-Nihilist... until I found out it makes more sense to try and unmake everything.
Why shouldn't I? It's just about as good a goal as trying to live life to the fullest.
edited 18th Apr '13 8:43:12 AM by Icarael
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."Well, you're welcome to try, but don't expect others not to attempt to stop you when they find out.
More importantly, what's the point of trying to unravel everything? Are you masochistic or something? If you don't justify this properly, people will be left wondering "If you hate the world so much, why don't you kill yourself?"
Why not? To that I ask, why yes? And by what standard do you judge "good"? What is it that makes one "about as good" as the other in your eyes?
edited 18th Apr '13 8:46:55 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I dunno, it's just this discussion led me to the same conclusion reached by those mages in Mage: The Awakening who want to have the world eaten by the Abyss.
And besides, if society is one big ball of lies, then the only truth is chaos. And that's one of the things I value: truth. So if the truth is that there is no truth and 2+2 may as well equal 8, then all claims are equally valid. And so the serial killer is as "good" as the dedicated paramedic.
Of course, the original conclusion I held was that if there is no objective truth, then what you hold to be the truth matters all the more. But the other one just seemed more sensible.
edited 18th Apr '13 9:01:10 AM by Icarael
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."![]()
Again, Appeal to Popularity. Just because so many people say it's harmful doesn't make it so.
So the question is not one of "right" and "wrong", but rather what works.
Then why do we even pretend to consider other ethical systems than pragmatism?
edited 18th Apr '13 9:07:20 AM by Icarael
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."Morality only exists in a social framework. In this case, Appeal to Popularity is not a fallacy.
Aagh. I don't know anymore.
All I'm getting is there's no objective truth and meaning is what we make of it. That still doesn't explain why we dislike serial killers since what they see as meaningful and good is just as valid as mine.
edited 18th Apr '13 9:18:07 AM by Icarael
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."
Oh. Right.
I should have been clearer: I meant to talk of pure pragmatism with no consideration for... whatever it is that the non-pragmatic parts of moral codes have. Like being charitable isn't particularly pragmatic since you're depriving yourself of resources, yet we often are admonished to be charitable.
Like, the only reason for doing something is to avoid negative consequences.
Or maybe I'm confusing pragmatism for "looking out for number one" and "fuck you, got mine".
edited 18th Apr '13 9:42:31 AM by Icarael
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."Laws don't deal with morals (or at least shouldn't in my opinion), they deal with rights.
Serial killers are disliked because they go against the law (since most if not all societies have laws against murders) and because they are a menace others' survival.
P.S. In societies where the laws are actually dictated by morals it is the moral code of the majority and/or those in power.

When everyone is Ubermench, no-one is Ubermench.