0

In what way is immoralism good for the ubermensch?

And, if there is no fact of the matter that I, you, or in deed anyone, is or isn't Nietzsche's higher type, as the SEP seems to say, then does that mean that immoralism is good for everyone in the same way?

Geoffrey Thomas
  • 35,303
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
  • Nietzsche sees moral as a mean of control and coping for the untermensch. It is not so much that transcending moral (if that's what you mean by "immoralism") is good for the ubermensch, it is that one can't be an ubermensch without transcending moral. – armand Jan 30 '21 at 02:02
  • so without morality we are freed from untermensch @armand ? –  Jan 30 '21 at 03:47
  • It's one of the necessary steps. According to Nietzsche, of course. – armand Jan 30 '21 at 04:49
  • no, i mean, is that all that trans-valuation is good for, being free of other people's moral rights? that doesn't seem enough, as many despicable people might violate my moral rights @armand in which case what difference is nobility from organized crime? –  Jan 30 '21 at 04:53
  • the question still isn't answered. –  Jan 30 '21 at 05:24
  • AFAIK, the Nietzschean ubermensch can be totally despicable. Not being bound by the moral standards of the untermensch, the ubermensch is not a hero. I am conscious this is no complete answer, that's why i post it as a comment. – armand Jan 30 '21 at 05:56
  • ok thanks @armand helpful! –  Jan 30 '21 at 06:33
  • 'Übermensch' substituted in title. – Geoffrey Thomas Feb 01 '21 at 16:55
  • Please provide quotes to illustrate how you came to this question, from views that Nietzsche expressed. We discussed a very similar question recently, here https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/78751/would-nietzsche-approve-of-the-concept-of-dictatorship/78753#78753 – CriglCragl Feb 01 '21 at 20:31

2 Answers2

1

It could be that trans-valuation and immoralism allows us only to see our motivations: whether our drives are composed of love for others (spirit), or instead a desire for power over them (the genealogy).

So what "good" it is for the overman is that it promotes freedom from morality, in the sense that the overman can: affirm that he has moral autonomy without dissolving the moral rights of others.

So they can will the eternal return.

1

Nietzsche's worldview is a little topsy-turvy, and we should bear that in mind. For Nietzsche, 'conventional' morality — the kind of thing taught in churches, inscribed in law, learned at our parent's knee, or otherwise authoritatively delivered from on high — is almost entirely bankrupt. The people who convey it are not interested in morality, only in power and social control; the people who are obedient to it are merely concerned with the appearance of virtue and respectability, and don't give a thought to the substance of it. It's the height of hypocrisy: adhering to the letter of moral stricture while completely abandoning the spirit of it.

Nietzsche's übermensch, thus, wants to transcend 'conventional' morality to achieve a deeper and more thorough sense of morality. Unfortunately, the distinction between transcending conventional morality and discarding morality entirely is difficult to convey. The übermensch is never immoral, even when violating conventional morality directly, because s'he is responding to the essence of the moral spirit. The übermensch is never nihilistic. In fact, Nietzsche associates nihilism with the worst of those espousing conventional morality: the ones who speak 'moral' words with no interest in or understanding of their essence. But it is all too easy for someone to fall into nihilism while thinking one is following the path of the übermensch. Rejecting conventional morality is necessary, but not sufficient; transcending morality demands a level of philosophical insight that most people do not grasp.

Ted Wrigley
  • 17,769
  • 2
  • 20
  • 51
  • i voted up because it directly answers the question, even-though citations would help (beginning of paragraph 2) –  Jan 30 '21 at 17:06
  • @anon: Yeah, I have a weird allergy to citations. Apologies... And honestly, in this case I don't know that a simple citation that would solve the issue; I'd have to build an argument. For instance, I could point at [The Parable of the Madman](http://www.historyguide.org/europe/madman.html), holding that 'We have killed God' means we have reduced him to mindless dogma and ritual, and 'We must become gods' implies transcendence. But does that really help? N's metaphorical-aphoristic style doesn't lend itself to formal deductive claims. – Ted Wrigley Jan 31 '21 at 15:50