I mean, what does advantageous mean (and who gets to decide what advantageous means)?
The Chinese government was able to pull a ton of people out of poverty and into the middle class with a system of governance that most Westerners find, on balance, to be too costly to individual civil rights for the benefits it produces. Whatever side of the debate you are on you have to acknowledge that there are very real differences in foundational moral principals. While I don’t doubt that some moral principals can be derived from psychology, all things being equal, the problem is that our most fundamental moral disagreements are always very complicated and always involve placing valence on multiple projected outcomes.
I don’t understand how people so easily dismiss Nietzche’s central philosophical claims when a good chunk of modern philosophy and indeed the terrible history of the first half of the 20th century has largely vindicated him.
It’s not like it even matters as a point of debate though, as we will see who is right very soon.
Look around: objective morality indeed! We are generating the worst negative externalities we have ever generated as a species and we placate ourselves because we have democratized the blame.
If this is a moral generation then I would like to know whoever was immoral. We’re about to destroy each other at scales unheard of, but because it’s through the environment and not through war we have rendered ourselves inculpable.
At least pre-Modern Aristolean morality forced people to think of their obligations to their community.
The Chinese government was able to pull a ton of people out of poverty and into the middle class with a system of governance that most Westerners find, on balance, to be too costly to individual civil rights for the benefits it produces. Whatever side of the debate you are on you have to acknowledge that there are very real differences in foundational moral principals. While I don’t doubt that some moral principals can be derived from psychology, all things being equal, the problem is that our most fundamental moral disagreements are always very complicated and always involve placing valence on multiple projected outcomes.
I don’t understand how people so easily dismiss Nietzche’s central philosophical claims when a good chunk of modern philosophy and indeed the terrible history of the first half of the 20th century has largely vindicated him.
It’s not like it even matters as a point of debate though, as we will see who is right very soon.
Look around: objective morality indeed! We are generating the worst negative externalities we have ever generated as a species and we placate ourselves because we have democratized the blame.
If this is a moral generation then I would like to know whoever was immoral. We’re about to destroy each other at scales unheard of, but because it’s through the environment and not through war we have rendered ourselves inculpable.
At least pre-Modern Aristolean morality forced people to think of their obligations to their community.