Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche

[Dionysus]

Long-time reader, first-time poster.

I'm curious: are there any Schopenhauerians or Nietzscheans here? I hold affinities with both, particularly the latter, but they rarely ever seem to come up in discussion. I'm also quite interested in the Christian view of these two geniuses of the Nineteenth Century.

[Dionysus]

I would like to detract what I said about Schopenhauer preaching a doctrine of immorality. He seems to be in a completley different class than Nietzsche.

Yes. He was priestly; he held that all actions which are harmful are the result of the Will to Live. What did he recommend? The same thing which all priests suggest: no longer to will life.

[MikeH]

IMHO, separating "ethics" and "morality" into two categories is just wordplay used to feed a superiority complex, especially since each word appears within the dictionary definition of the other. "Morality" conjures up thoughts of sweaty preachers, while "Ethics" sounds much more studied, more superior.

[Dionysus]

IMHO, separating "ethics" and "morality" into two categories is just wordplay used to feed a superiority complex, especially since each word appears within the dictionary definition of the other. "Morality" conjures up thoughts of sweaty preachers, while "Ethics" sounds much more studied, more superior.

There's an incredible difference between the two.

The Hippocratic Oath which a doctor takes is a code of ethics. It pertains to an activity, namely that of practicing medicine. It applies only to him when he practices medicine, and has specific guidelines justified on no other grounds than their utility to the medical profession.

Morality is a universal code of conduct applicable to all men irregardless of their particular vocations, interests, personalities, material and social standings, etc.

Surely you can see the difference, and why undertaking the task of forming an 'ethics of living' (a code of conduct attached to a very specific activity - that of sentient life) is far more useful and much more valid an endeavor than Christian moralism.

We have no need to make ourselves feel superior to preachers and other moralists. We simply are.

[MikeH]

Surely you can see the difference, and why undertaking the task of forming an 'ethics of living' (a code of conduct attached to a very specific activity - that of sentient life) is far more useful and much more valid an endeavor than Christian moralism.

Of course I see the difference in definition, but when applied to the very specific activity of being an alive human being (as opposed to what, a code of conduct for the dead?), they amount to exactly the same thing. People have already sub-categorized morality based on situation, all this is adding is an extra little bit of smug.

We have no need to make ourselves feel superior to preachers and other moralists. We simply are.

Like I said, superiority complex.

[ShadowRishi]

IMHO, separating "ethics" and "morality" into two categories is just wordplay used to feed a superiority complex, especially since each word appears within the dictionary definition of the other. "Morality" conjures up thoughts of sweaty preachers, while "Ethics" sounds much more studied, more superior.

I'm afraid I do not see how that feeds a superiority complex.


Morality does conjure up an old preacher discussing why all the sinners go to hell.

Ethics is a word used by intellectuals, such as bioethics, political ethics, and other such concepts.


Perhaps you view this differently, and that's okay. But I prefer --as in, my own personal preference-- to use ethics and morality differently.

[MikeH]

I'm afraid I do not see how that feeds a superiority complex.

Morality does conjure up an old preacher discussing why all the sinners go to hell.

Ethics is a word used by intellectuals, such as bioethics, political ethics, and other such concepts.

That's exactly how it feeds a superiority complex. It's an "intelluctualists" way of describing the exact same thing the old preacher is describing. It only makes you feel more educated, more enlightened, more evolved. It's only using the word as a marketing term. It's not a hard drive that plays mp3s, it's an IPod.

Perhaps you view this differently, and that's okay. But I prefer --as in, my own personal preference-- to use ethics and morality differently.

Ok, if calling your personal set of right and wrongs "ethics" instead of "morals" makes you feel like you belong to an elite group of intellectuals, then by all means have at it.

[ShadowRishi]

Surely you can see the difference, and why undertaking the task of forming an 'ethics of living' (a code of conduct attached to a very specific activity - that of sentient life) is far more useful and much more valid an endeavor than Christian moralism.

Of course I see the difference in definition, but when applied to the very specific activity of being an alive human being (as opposed to what, a code of conduct for the dead?), they amount to exactly the same thing. People have already sub-categorized morality based on situation, all this is adding is an extra little bit of smug.

We have no need to make ourselves feel superior to preachers and other moralists. We simply are.

Like I said, superiority complex.

You'll have to forgive his, ahem, enthusiasm.


By nature, if I can adapt my ethics --that is to say, if I am given a chance to re-evaluate my reasons for my given ethical code if a situation changes, then that is, by one definition of superior, superior.


Take for example an ethical dilemma: (I recognize that most of these are massively hypothetical, but the point still stands that sometimes cold hard logic is better than chipper, still screwing everyone, morality)


First example:

You rush your wife the hospital. She's giving birth, but complications arise. You can choose to not abort your child and have both your wife and the child die, or you can abort the child and save your wife's life. What do you do?

Sure, I'm not a fan of abortion past the first trimester, but otherwise, my wife and my kid are going to die.


Second Example:

This gets more complicated.

Hypothetically, you, your baby sister, and your 17 friends are Jews who've escaped from a Nazi prison camp. You are hiding in a cave while Germans look for you; you can see them running to the place you're hiding, and all of a sudden your baby sister starts crying. Hypothetically, there's no way to shut her up besides killing her (which we'll just assume for this example is true; call it that you're a paraplegic on the ground and you've got your right toe on a gun aimed at your crying sister and no other way to shut her up).

So, you are given a choice. If the Nazi's here her crying, they'll come and shoot all of you --the baby included. So, if you don't take the baby's life, it will die. If you do take the baby's life... Well, it's dead anyways. Logically, this baby is dead, only it is still breathing. But you and your friends, they are still alive. Is it wrong to leave a situation with only one dead person, or is it better that you don't kill someone, and then allow 17 people to be killed?

[MikeH]

First example:

You rush your wife the hospital. She's giving birth, but complications arise. You can choose to not abort your child and have both your wife and the child die, or you can abort the child and save your wife's life. What do you do?

Sure, I'm not a fan of abortion past the first trimester, but otherwise, my wife and my kid are going to die.


Second Example:

This gets more complicated.

Hypothetically, you, your baby sister, and your 17 friends are Jews who've escaped from a Nazi prison camp. You are hiding in a cave while Germans look for you; you can see them running to the place you're hiding, and all of a sudden your baby sister starts crying. Hypothetically, there's no way to shut her up besides killing her (which we'll just assume for this example is true; call it that you're a paraplegic on the ground and you've got your right toe on a gun aimed at your crying sister and no other way to shut her up).

So, you are given a choice. If the Nazi's here her crying, they'll come and shoot all of you --the baby included. So, if you don't take the baby's life, it will die. If you do take the baby's life... Well, it's dead anyways. Logically, this baby is dead, only it is still breathing. But you and your friends, they are still alive. Is it wrong to leave a situation with only one dead person, or is it better that you don't kill someone, and then allow 17 people to be killed?

You could say that these are complicated "ethical" decisions, or you could say that these are complicated "moral" decisions because they mean the exact same thing! The dictionary definition of morals is ethics and the definition of ethics is morals. In the thesaurus they are synonyms of each other. That leads me to conclude that they are the exact same thing.

You're only looking at how the two words make you feel based on emotional attachment (a preacher uses one and a doctor uses the other), and then trying to disassociate the two. It seems like you're then trying to equate morality with fundamentalism and ethics with relativism, when no such relationship exists.

[ShadowRishi]

You could say that these are complicated "ethical" decisions, or you could say that these are complicated "moral" decisions because they mean the exact same thing! The dictionary definition of morals is ethics and the definition of ethics is morals. In the thesaurus they are synonyms of each other. That leads me to conclude that they are the exact same thing.

You're only looking at how the two words make you feel based on emotional attachment (a preacher uses one and a doctor uses the other), and then trying to disassociate the two. It seems like you're then trying to equate morality with fundamentalism and ethics with relativism, when no such relationship exists.

I'll cede that it is based on connotation, but also on my own personal denotation.

I said I was re-defining, for my arguments, the term ethics. If you object, feel free to. In the mean while, I will continue using my specific denotations.

[MikeH]

I said I was re-defining, for my arguments, the term ethics. If you object, feel free to. In the mean while, I will continue using my specific denotations.

No problem. And I choose to redefine the term ethics, for my future arguments, as "morals for people who love the smell of their own farts."