Jurgen Habermas

[Gary Childress]

Okay, but why?

If we assume that there's no metaphysical guarantors of morality, why is "justice" something we suppose we are owed? Why isn't Machiavellianism just another alternative on parallel with, say, democracy, or republicanism, or monarchy, or fascism, or Communist totalitarianism, or any other political arrangement?

If "power" is all that's behind any of them, then there's no "right" or "wrong." All there is, is power. And nobody's promised any such values as justice, equality, fairness...or even life itself. Whatever is most powerful wins. That's all that can be said.

And if Machiavelli's plan works better for some purpose somebody has than does democracy, what can we say but "power wins"?

"Okay, but why" what? Are you asking why is nature a big fish eat little fish kind of world?

Not quite. I'm just pointing out that Nietzsche's hypothesis makes a world of sense if there's no metaphysical guarantor of morality...that is, that from a strictly secular viewpoint, Nietzsche has to be right.

Of course, I don't believe that Nietzsche's assumption was correct: but if it had been, it would be hard to argue with his point, namely, that all morality is really a fix, a ruse to cover the lust for power. It could not be otherwise.

But that comes with some very troubling corollaries as well: in particular, that there is no such thing as morality, so "justice" and "equality" and such are nothings...frauds...merely levers for Nietzschean manipulators to pull on, because other people happen to naively believe in them. But the Nietzschean or the Machiavellian owes nothing to such values as "justice" or "equality," because he's seen that they're a fix. So there's no longer any way to resist Nietzschean or Machiavellian manipulators, since you can't call them to conscience or charge them legally for failing to believe in mere fictions.

And we might ask, is that a world we can actually live in?

We probably "can" live in such a world. Our ancestors probably often lived in such a world from time to time. The questions is, who but the primary benefactors would "want" to live in such a world where most are living the life of a serf while the prince pushes them around like pawns on a chessboard. Would the vast majority of human beings think to ourselves, "why should we live like this"?

Before Locke and others, much of Europe was carved up into fiefdoms. Locke's idea caught on for whatever reason and people decided it sounded fairer and more just. Of course, Nietzsche says that's a "slave" morality because for eons the strong dominated and saw strength as morality. And for much of history human societies across the early civilizations were empires and despotisms that embraced strength as a value and just pummeled the weak.

The question is, why did humans decide to make that change if there was no tangible benefit to it for all? Why did humans abandon morality of strength where the weak are "thrown to the lions" in favor of justice as fairness? The answer is probably that the strong also realized too well that they had to face existential insecurity also. I think everyone has a stake in a just civilization, whether there's a God or not. Why would anyone besides a few despots and their lackeys want to revert back to despotism? Most people like ourselves are against it if we have nothing to gain from it and only a lot to lose.

[Gary Childress]

Look at history. We started out hunters and gatherers on the savannah, fighting wild animals. We depended on members of our clan for support. Eventually we evolved into sedentary agricultural societies that fought and clawed at each other for domination (and still do to some degree). The weak were shunned as impotent and undeserving of anything (and still largely are). Nietzsche's ethics of strength held firm. At some point around the world, during the "axial age" people began to emerge who questioned the status quo and showed others that they did not need to destroy the weak in order for everyone to survive. There was enough surplus that people could live without continually pummeling each other to death.

The question is, why would humans do that? Is there no rational reason for human beings to create kinder gentler forms of civilization? Do we need a God to instruct us to do such? Or are there real benefits to living in a kinder gentler civilization? Who among us does not benefit from civility in society? And if most want civility then it's going to happen and philosophers are going to spend lifetimes of study just trying to codify what the exact best rules are--just as they do now. And just as happens now, we all have a problem with grounding civility in anything other than it's what most people ideally want. Religious folks maybe have an advantage in that they have a sense of a God who expects it from them. Secular folks maybe have to be a little more careful that we don't piss others off to the point that we lose civility in society. But everyone benefits from civility. Nietzsche wanting to banish "slave" morality is comical since he was probably the biggest "pussy" in Europe at the time, judging from his military and civil records. He was a basket case after the military. He himself had nothing to gain from a society of strength as morality.

Of course, Nietzsche wanted to be a great thinker and poopoo every other person beneath his intellect and therefore tried to convince everyone else that they were stupid to believe in contemporary morality. Not the brightest undertaking on his part. Otherwise, sure there's the ethics of strength. However, most humans (for good reason) would rather not have to fight each other all the time and will settle for peaceful survival instead. But Nietzsche was right about strength being the way of most other species in the natural world. That doesn't mean we need to mimic the natural world if we can rationally come up with a better one, at least I don't think so.

[Immanuel Can]

"Okay, but why" what? Are you asking why is nature a big fish eat little fish kind of world?

Not quite. I'm just pointing out that Nietzsche's hypothesis makes a world of sense if there's no metaphysical guarantor of morality...that is, that from a strictly secular viewpoint, Nietzsche has to be right.

Of course, I don't believe that Nietzsche's assumption was correct: but if it had been, it would be hard to argue with his point, namely, that all morality is really a fix, a ruse to cover the lust for power. It could not be otherwise.

But that comes with some very troubling corollaries as well: in particular, that there is no such thing as morality, so "justice" and "equality" and such are nothings...frauds...merely levers for Nietzschean manipulators to pull on, because other people happen to naively believe in them. But the Nietzschean or the Machiavellian owes nothing to such values as "justice" or "equality," because he's seen that they're a fix. So there's no longer any way to resist Nietzschean or Machiavellian manipulators, since you can't call them to conscience or charge them legally for failing to believe in mere fictions.

And we might ask, is that a world we can actually live in?

We probably "can" live in such a world. Our ancestors probably often lived in such a world from time to time.

They didn't, actually. Even the most ancient societies always thought there was a metaphysical guarantor of morality, in some form. Atheism's a new kid on the block.

The questions is, who but the primary benefactors would "want" to live in such a world where most are living the life of a serf while the prince pushes them around like pawns on a chessboard. Would the vast majority of human beings think to ourselves, "why should we live like this"?

What we "want," to Nietzsche et al., is immaterial. What do we HAVE: that's the question they try to answer.

Locke's idea caught on for whatever reason...

Protestantism.

Of course, Nietzsche says that's a "slave" morality because for eons the strong dominated and saw strength as morality.

It's the opposite, actually. Nietzsche was very clear about this: he was not describing the world as it had been, but, according to his perspective, as it was coming to be, given Atheism. He knew very well that while the old metaphysical guarantees were in place, that the worst was never going to happen...but the minute they were not, things were about to get very grim.

And he was kind of prophetic in that, since the century after Nietzsche's death saw the most brutal and vicious ideologies and regimes in human history, and all of them backed by a Nietzschean view of the moral landscape. Once God is out of the picture, so is any guarantee of the moral rightness of anything. Then it's just power against power.

[Gary Childress]

Not quite. I'm just pointing out that Nietzsche's hypothesis makes a world of sense if there's no metaphysical guarantor of morality...that is, that from a strictly secular viewpoint, Nietzsche has to be right.

Of course, I don't believe that Nietzsche's assumption was correct: but if it had been, it would be hard to argue with his point, namely, that all morality is really a fix, a ruse to cover the lust for power. It could not be otherwise.

But that comes with some very troubling corollaries as well: in particular, that there is no such thing as morality, so "justice" and "equality" and such are nothings...frauds...merely levers for Nietzschean manipulators to pull on, because other people happen to naively believe in them. But the Nietzschean or the Machiavellian owes nothing to such values as "justice" or "equality," because he's seen that they're a fix. So there's no longer any way to resist Nietzschean or Machiavellian manipulators, since you can't call them to conscience or charge them legally for failing to believe in mere fictions.

And we might ask, is that a world we can actually live in?

We probably "can" live in such a world. Our ancestors probably often lived in such a world from time to time.

They didn't, actually. Even the most ancient societies always thought there was a metaphysical guarantor of morality, in some form. Atheism's a new kid on the block.

The questions is, who but the primary benefactors would "want" to live in such a world where most are living the life of a serf while the prince pushes them around like pawns on a chessboard. Would the vast majority of human beings think to ourselves, "why should we live like this"?

What we "want," to Nietzsche et al., is immaterial. What do we HAVE: that's the question they try to answer.

Locke's idea caught on for whatever reason...

Protestantism.

Of course, Nietzsche says that's a "slave" morality because for eons the strong dominated and saw strength as morality.

It's the opposite, actually. Nietzsche was very clear about this: he was not describing the world as it had been, but, according to his perspective, as it was coming to be, given Atheism. He knew very well that while the old metaphysical guarantees were in place, that the worst was never going to happen...but the minute they were not, things were about to get very grim.

And he was kind of prophetic in that, since the century after Nietzsche's death saw the most brutal and vicious ideologies and regimes in human history, and all of them backed by a Nietzschean view of the moral landscape. Once God is out of the picture, so is any guarantee of the moral rightness of anything. Then it's just power against power.

My point is, even without a God, there is benefit for the majority to be had in civil society. Even an atheist can see benefit to living in a society that has rule of law and codes of conduct so that the next door neighbor doesn't just take your stuff or a despot doesn't come to power and tell everyone to go kill the neighboring civilization so that he can have their gold or concubines. There are real advantages to civil society for the majority with or without a God. There is no imperative that an atheist must believe in dog eat dog reality for human society, except in your mind that wants to believe in the superiority of theists.

[Immanuel Can]

We probably "can" live in such a world. Our ancestors probably often lived in such a world from time to time.

They didn't, actually. Even the most ancient societies always thought there was a metaphysical guarantor of morality, in some form. Atheism's a new kid on the block.

The questions is, who but the primary benefactors would "want" to live in such a world where most are living the life of a serf while the prince pushes them around like pawns on a chessboard. Would the vast majority of human beings think to ourselves, "why should we live like this"?

What we "want," to Nietzsche et al., is immaterial. What do we HAVE: that's the question they try to answer.

Locke's idea caught on for whatever reason...

Protestantism.

Of course, Nietzsche says that's a "slave" morality because for eons the strong dominated and saw strength as morality.

It's the opposite, actually. Nietzsche was very clear about this: he was not describing the world as it had been, but, according to his perspective, as it was coming to be, given Atheism. He knew very well that while the old metaphysical guarantees were in place, that the worst was never going to happen...but the minute they were not, things were about to get very grim.

And he was kind of prophetic in that, since the century after Nietzsche's death saw the most brutal and vicious ideologies and regimes in human history, and all of them backed by a Nietzschean view of the moral landscape. Once God is out of the picture, so is any guarantee of the moral rightness of anything. Then it's just power against power.

My point is, even without a God, there is benefit for the majority to be had in civil society.

I don't doubt it. Everybody's better off when people believe in morality. But Nietzsche's question is, "Why believe in morality when there's no truth behind it?" And his answer is, "What's best is for YOU, Gary, to believe in morality, and for ME to be able to do what I want -- including using your sensitivity to morality to leverage my own advantage." This is his idea of the ubermenschen, the "overmen," who are smart enough to know that morality is just a 'fix,' when others are sheepishly following moral rules. And this offers to them the power over the sheep that they seek.

And for them it's not even "bad" to do this. Because there's no such thing as "good" and "bad," morally speaking, in a world with no metaphysical moral guarantees. They get to see this, and you, they realize, won't. So that puts you at a significant disadvantage to them, and offers them opportunities you can't have. That's what makes them "overmen."

[Gary Childress]

They didn't, actually. Even the most ancient societies always thought there was a metaphysical guarantor of morality, in some form. Atheism's a new kid on the block.

What we "want," to Nietzsche et al., is immaterial. What do we HAVE: that's the question they try to answer.
Protestantism.

It's the opposite, actually. Nietzsche was very clear about this: he was not describing the world as it had been, but, according to his perspective, as it was coming to be, given Atheism. He knew very well that while the old metaphysical guarantees were in place, that the worst was never going to happen...but the minute they were not, things were about to get very grim.

And he was kind of prophetic in that, since the century after Nietzsche's death saw the most brutal and vicious ideologies and regimes in human history, and all of them backed by a Nietzschean view of the moral landscape. Once God is out of the picture, so is any guarantee of the moral rightness of anything. Then it's just power against power.

My point is, even without a God, there is benefit for the majority to be had in civil society.

"Why believe in morality ..."

Because our livelihoods and ultimately our lives depend on it. Regarding there being no "truth" behind it, those are Nietzsche's words, not mine.

[Immanuel Can]

My point is, even without a God, there is benefit for the majority to be had in civil society.

"Why believe in morality ..."

Because our livelihoods and ultimately our lives depend on it.

Well, yours may. But not the "overman's." He gets to win, and you get to lose. That's Nietzsche's point.

[Gary Childress]

"Why believe in morality ..."

Because our livelihoods and ultimately our lives depend on it.

Well, yours may. But not the "overman's." He gets to win, and you get to lose. That's Nietzsche's point.

I can't do anything about Nietzsche's "overman". If someone thinks they can live a better life by destroying civil society around him or her, then there's not much I can say to dissuade them. except let them reap the consequences of their actions when others catch on to what they're doing and ask themselves why should they not kill someone who would kill them? Prisons are full of "overmen". And that's probably a legitimate place to put them when they break laws--as far as keeping society civil goes.

[Age]

They didn't, actually. Even the most ancient societies always thought there was a metaphysical guarantor of morality, in some form. Atheism's a new kid on the block.

What we "want," to Nietzsche et al., is immaterial. What do we HAVE: that's the question they try to answer.
Protestantism.

It's the opposite, actually. Nietzsche was very clear about this: he was not describing the world as it had been, but, according to his perspective, as it was coming to be, given Atheism. He knew very well that while the old metaphysical guarantees were in place, that the worst was never going to happen...but the minute they were not, things were about to get very grim.

And he was kind of prophetic in that, since the century after Nietzsche's death saw the most brutal and vicious ideologies and regimes in human history, and all of them backed by a Nietzschean view of the moral landscape. Once God is out of the picture, so is any guarantee of the moral rightness of anything. Then it's just power against power.

My point is, even without a God, there is benefit for the majority to be had in civil society.

I don't doubt it. Everybody's better off when people believe in morality.

What a Truly STUPID thing to SAY and CLAIM, here.

There is absolutely NO USE, let alone ANY BENEFIT, AT ALL, to BELIEVING IN some thing when who and/or what the 'thing' ACTUALLY IS is NOT YET even KNOWN.

For example, "immanuel can" BELIEVES IN some God with a penis, and OBVIOUSLY there is NO benefit AT ALL in BELIEVING IN 'this'.

But Nietzsche's question is, "Why believe in morality when there's no truth behind it?" And his answer is, "What's best is for YOU, Gary, to believe in morality, and for ME to be able to do what I want -- including using your sensitivity to morality to leverage my own advantage." This is his idea of the ubermenschen, the "overmen," who are smart enough to know that morality is just a 'fix,' when others are sheepishly following moral rules. And this offers to them the power over the sheep that they seek.

EXACTLY LIKE WHEN people THREATEN others with things like, 'If you do not do as we say and tell you, you will live out eternity SUFFERING, IN HELL.

And, OBVIOUSLY, this offers them the power over the sheep that they seek.

And for them it's not even "bad" to do this. Because there's no such thing as "good" and "bad," morally speaking, in a world with no metaphysical moral guarantees. They get to see this, and you, they realize, won't. So that puts you at a significant disadvantage to them, and offers them opportunities you can't have. That's what makes them "overmen."

So, 'this one' is, literally, here, 'TRYING TO' DECEIVE you, here, EXACTLY LIKE these so-called "overmen" DO.

Literally, while "immanuel can" is EXPLAINING how the "overmen" ARE and what 'they' DO "immanuel can" is DOING THE SAME.

[Immanuel Can]

Because our livelihoods and ultimately our lives depend on it.

Well, yours may. But not the "overman's." He gets to win, and you get to lose. That's Nietzsche's point.

I can't do anything about Nietzsche's "overman". If someone thinks they can live a better life by destroying civil society around him or her, then there's not much I can say to dissuade them.

Oh, they don't destroy it. They don't have to. They want it intact. But they take advantage of it, because they alone don't have to play by the rules.

Nietzsche's bigger point is simply this: if there's no metaphysical guarantees, why not be an "overman"? Isn't it the most advantageous thing to be?

[Gary Childress]

Nietzsche's bigger point is simply this: if there's no metaphysical guarantees, why not be an "overman"? Isn't it the most advantageous thing to be?

I'm not aware of Nietzsche saying that but if so, that would make him a pretty laughable philosopher considering his own health and dependence upon a pension to live the life he did. I mean, society makes rules to keep laws intact. If someone breaks the laws, then all I can say is report them. That's the legitimate reason for the existence of police and courts.

[Immanuel Can]

Nietzsche's bigger point is simply this: if there's no metaphysical guarantees, why not be an "overman"? Isn't it the most advantageous thing to be?

I'm not aware of Nietzsche saying that but if so, that would make him a pretty laughable philosopher considering his own health and dependence upon a pension to live the life he did.

He wasn't the nicest person, to be sure. He died relatively young, and insane...perhaps syphillis.

I mean, society makes rules to keep laws intact. If someone breaks the laws, then all I can say is report them. That's the legitimate reason for the existence of police and courts.

Habermas adds another layer of problem to this response: how do we know that what we tell the police and courts to enforce is legitimate?

After all, in the Soviet Union or the Third Reich, they had police and courts, but they enforced quite different standards from our own, standards you and I find deplorable now. So it's not just about our society being good and theirs being bad: absent any metaphysical guarantees, Soviet gulags and American prisons are on par, and neither is wrong. Power determines everything.

So what can the State legitimately do? There can be no answer for any of us, except, "whatever it has the power to enforce," according to Nietzsche. So the same courts that you rely on to protect your property could madate the State to rob you of it, and since "power" is all that's necessary, you have no basis of moral recourse for that. You don't even get a right to complain.

[Gary Childress]

So the same courts that you rely on to protect your property could madate the State to rob you of it, and since "power" is all that's necessary, you have no basis of moral recourse for that. You don't even get a right to complain.

There's not much I can do about that. I'll continue to play by the rules and stay out of trouble because I don't fancy being in prison. If I perceive that society is making unjust rules, then all I can do is try to vote against those rules. In the meantime, I have to follow the rules that are put in place. I hope they're reasonable and will vote against them if I perceive they aren't. Other than that, what am I supposed to do?

[Immanuel Can]

So the same courts that you rely on to protect your property could madate the State to rob you of it, and since "power" is all that's necessary, you have no basis of moral recourse for that. You don't even get a right to complain.

There's not much I can do about that. I'll continue to play by the rules and stay out of trouble because I don't fancy being in prison. If I perceive that society is making unjust rules, then all I can do is try to vote against those rules. In the meantime, I have to follow the rules that are put in place. I hope they're reasonable and will vote against them if I perceive they aren't. Other than that, what am I supposed to do?

According to Nietzsche, nothing. There's nothing you can do. And Habermas raises the issue, "If you did try to do something, how would you know if it was legitimate for you to do it, or whether you were doing something illegitimate, or not related to legitimation at all?"

Basically, Nietzsche leaves one in the power of the unscrupulous, and says, "It sucks to be you." Habermas adds, "And how do we know what's okay to do about that?"

[Gary Childress]

So the same courts that you rely on to protect your property could madate the State to rob you of it, and since "power" is all that's necessary, you have no basis of moral recourse for that. You don't even get a right to complain.

There's not much I can do about that. I'll continue to play by the rules and stay out of trouble because I don't fancy being in prison. If I perceive that society is making unjust rules, then all I can do is try to vote against those rules. In the meantime, I have to follow the rules that are put in place. I hope they're reasonable and will vote against them if I perceive they aren't. Other than that, what am I supposed to do?

According to Nietzsche, nothing. There's nothing you can do. And Habermas raises the issue, "If you did try to do something, how would you know if it was legitimate for you to do it, or whether you were doing something illegitimate, or not related to legitimation at all?"

Basically, Nietzsche leaves one in the power of the unscrupulous, and says, "It sucks to be you." Habermas adds, "And how do we know what's okay to do about that?"

So what point are you trying to make? I do as much as I can. I can do no more than what I can.