Philosophers

I was wondering whether or not there is any difference between Nietzsche's view of ethics, as consisting of life affirming values, the superman, and the will to power, and the view of Ayn Rand that morality is doing what is in your own self interest. Arent both of them saying that the moral thing to do is to do what is in your self interest and increase your power, and ignore ideas such as pity and charity?

Comments

You are certainly correct thatNietzsche is often enough INTERPRETED in that way.: as if the onlygenuine moral value lay in the self-interest of individuals. This,however, is not Nietzsche's view. To be fair, Nietzsche is adifficult writer and thinker – some would say incoherent – somisinterpretation of Nietzsche is partly Nietzsche's fault.

First of all, Nietzsche argues thatthat stage of human development which emphasises and valuesindividuals is not the highest or last stage – it is just anotherhistorical transition. It occurs every time a culture becomes'decadent', and eventually leads to another configuration ofcollective culture. If human individuals are to be valued, then, itis not for their own sakes, but for what they can achieve – giventheir current historical situation – on behalf of the developmentof a mode of human life. Second, the will-to-power does not correlateto individuals. Every 'individual' is always a multiplicity of'wills'; the appearance of being a unity is an effect of thatmultiplicity and not its basis. So, power is not yours or mine toincrease. Third, it follows (Nietzsche argues) that self-interest isa meaningless concept: a self (being only an appearance) is not thekind of thing that could 'have' an interest. The underlying values ofa mode of life operate through the self. This is the startling resultat the end of the Genealogy of Morality:even that which appears to devalue life (e.g. Christian asceticism)is a mode of human life, albeit one that wants to freeze things at acertain stage of development and not allow the human type to change.Thus Nietzsche argues that the Christian virtues of 'pity' and'charity' exist primarily as a mechanism by which a certain type ofhuman life is preserved and not allowed to change. These virtues haveother meanings for the 'free spirit' (see especially section 225 ofBeyond Good and Evil –which you will note is part of chapter entitled 'Our Virtues').

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Philosophers