The will to power is a Nietzschean concept that’s similar to what depth psychologists call Eros: the drive to live and express oneself in the world. As a team of ants attempts to invade my kitchen, they demonstrate blind Eros, the will to power. They’re looking for food for themselves and their queen’s babies. The very existence of ants is a result of this force propelling them outward to take, to build, and to protect themselves. And so it happened, while out in my yard, I was bitten by a particularly mean ant. I didn’t realize I’d declared war, but apparently I had.
Injured, with a 25mm round red spot, I lament the immorality of the ants. They just take whatever they want and if you accidently get in their way, they’re ruthless. Oh the humanity!
I say the trolley problem is nothing compared to this question: if you must choose between immoral biting and morality, between dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima to end a war versus holding back for the sake of morality, which do you embrace?
I dont think Nietchze was arguing against morality. He thought good people had clear values. He disliked herd mentality where peole just adopted whatever minimum set of onligations served them and the wider population
We immoralists are the most radical opponents of morality.
would the sight of an immoral world really make us pessimists? No, because we don’t believe in morality - - we believe that charity, law, compassion, and obedience to the law are grossly overvalued, that their opposite has been slandered, and that both the exaggeration and the slander, the whole application of the moral ideal and measure, have involved a tremendous danger to man(Nietzsche)
It is quite hard to say, even with the wording, that Nietzsche did not believe in morality per se. It’s pretty well-recognized his project was one of critique and re-evaluation. Take this from the Antichrist:
"What is good?—All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man.
What is bad?—All that proceeds from weakness."
Or this from BGE:
“The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges ‘what is harmful to me is harmful in itself’; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things.”
These seem to speak about morality in pretty clear terms. I think what he’s railing against in your quote is standard, socialised moral standards.
I’m not sure I fully understand the question. What’s at stake in your example? One hundred thousand people in Hiroshima versus potentially countless more if the war continues? If that hypothesis is accurate, doesn’t it make sense to bomb Japan? I’m sure there wouldn’t be too much trouble finding someone to “press the button”
I don’t understand Nietzsche’s work, so you’ll have to explain how this relates to the Will to Power. I thought there were various interpretations but that it essentially meant that we strive toward some form of self-actualization or mastery/self-overcoming, and that things like morality can tame our instincts and constrain our potential. Does your case above provide an illustration of this at work?
I appreciate that there are many readings of Nietzsche. The Nietzsche I embrace has one ethical injunction, to endlessly become through self -overcoming. This does not mean to land on the right content of thought or action, but to keep from arriving at any final ought other than self-transformation itself.
You’re fairly unusual if you apply this broadly. It means you generally accept warfare and genocide. Most of the ugliest aspects of humanity are coming from the will to survive. Do you agree?
Violence brings violence until one party is broken. The stronger always win and rule. That is one part of the story, and humans have shown that they are very good at this. Morality is a code of conduct for a stable society in which individuals do not break each other’s rights. We also have laws to guarantee that people’s rights are not violated, so people can live in a stable society. That’s another part of the story. War is an absurd thing humans have been practicing for ages. Killing is wrong since it violates the rights of an individual to live, whether the individual is a soldier, an old person, a child, etc. There is an old saying, Wise people do not start a war since they are held responsible for initiating the violence! Unfortunately, humans are not wise enough, so we have to live our unfortunate lives, witnessing our rights constantly broken!
I don’t know if that’s the case. I would say, rather, that human behaviour can be ugly. Our desire for the beautiful can also turn us into monsters. I used to work for an antiquities dealer who dealt with Christies, and that was not for the faint-hearted.
I accept war in certain circumstances but I don’t accept genocide. Why does that follow?
Cool. Glad it’s not just me. A lot going on in this OP and I wasn’t sure which bit was the focus.
The great Aleister Crowley said, paraphrased: ‘by the time you need valor, you’ve already seriously screwed up.’
I used to agree with that, but now I think it can happen to anyone: you’re minding your own business and someone bombs your Pearl Harbor. Now you get to learn who you really are, right?