>>24204132
>Nietzsche’s moral psychology is simpleminded and paranoid.

This misunderstands Nietzsche’s argument. He doesn’t claim that every individual holding moral beliefs is personally resentful. Instead, he describes a deep cultural shift in how values were structured over centuries. Slave morality didn’t emerge because individual slaves conspired to overturn their masters but because oppressed populations, lacking direct power, reshaped morality to serve their interests.

>Morality does not target power, only the unjust use of power.

Nietzsche would partially agree—his point is not that all moral people consciously hate power, but that historically, moral systems evolved to redefine power itself as morally suspect.

Yes, in everyday life, people recognize distinctions between just and unjust uses of power. But Nietzsche’s critique is aimed at a deeper level: moral systems that treat power itself as something to be resisted. For Nietzsche, this leads to a culture that instinctively mistrusts ambition, assertiveness, and self-overcoming (I would personally say he’s wrong).

>Empathy and pity are not Christian inventions but human universals.

Nietzsche doesn’t deny that humans feel pity or empathy. He criticizes how these emotions have been moralized into a system that glorifies weakness & suffering. In Christianity, pity becomes a virtue, and suffering is seen as redemptive. Nietzsche sees this as dangerous because it leads to a morality that sustains weakness rather than overcoming it.

For instance, a person who feels pity might help someone suffering, which is a natural human impulse. But under Christian morality, suffering itself is sanctified, and weakness is turned into a moral ideal. Nietzsche sees this as life-denying because it encourages passivity rather than active transformation.

>Littering

Nietzsche would likely respond that this feeling of inner duty is not innate but the product of centuries of moral conditioning. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to feel a sense of duty—but it’s important to recognize that moral instincts are shaped by historical forces rather than being universal truths.

Anyway, there are many critiques of Nietzsche and his Will to Power nonsense. Heidegger saw it as Nietzsche’s attempt to overcome nihilism, but he failed because all he did was replace one absolute (truth) with another (power). Sartre saw Nietzsche as reducing all value-creation to struggle rather than an authentic act of freedom, failing to provide us with a meaningful ought. Habermas pointed out that Nietzsche failed to account for intersubjectivity and that ethics is not just a power struggle, but a system of rational discourse where people negotiate values. A lot of other thinkers have challenged him.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Nietzsche's philosophy of ethics is really a joke. To someone with a keenly developed moral sense, listening to Nietzsche's speculations on…