If morality is a spook, how do we define what is bad and shouldn't be done? For example...

How do we differentiate ethics from morality.

Also this article might be helpful for some theanarchistlibrary.org/library/w-curtis-swabey-stirnerian-ethics

MORALITY IS A SPOOB

Morality is basically culture dependent.

Ethics is basically the underlying philosophical grounding.

This was the distinction I was taught in Catholic philosophy classes. So basically a utilitarian might argue that while you may think you do the right thing because "it's the right thing to do", you're actually doing it because its the best way to maximize utility or whatever even if they don't necessarily make the distinction between ethics and morality. And similarly, i was taught that we actually do what we do because we're trying to achieve happiness.

Spooky

The truth is if you want to enjoy your freedom in an egoistically organized society you won't hurt other people because they'll hurt you back.

Individual freedom is not the basis of morality. In practice morality exists.

This doesn't actually contradict the ethics/morality split. Egoism is just another theory of ethics along with consequentialism, deontology, etc.

Veil of ignorance. I cant tell which end i'm going to be on so I'd rather it just not happen at all.

What benefits you.

What does not benefit you.

In The Antichrist, Nietzsche basically explains this is the basis of all morality. Rape is bad because it does not benefit you. Benefit also should not be confused with basic gain.

...

non dualistic views of ethics that don't worry about calling an action good or bad but rather acknowledge what kind or effects an action has then figure out what is most beneficial to the group and the individual.

Trick question.

You don't :^)

But what if the majority agrees to rape? After all, the majority is always right in establishing individualism! :^)

you fucked up

That would only happen small scale. Globally You won't see the majority agree even in the rapiest time periods.

would most people be OK with having X be done to them?

ETHICAL!

Morality doesn't exist in a real sense. Morality is just a way of describing human behaviour.
"Rape is bad" doesn't describe an inherent quality of rape, it describes that most people don't want to rape, most people would feel guilty if they did and if somebody does rape somebody, most people would would want to fuck that rapist up or at least support legal action against him.

There.

Morals are universal and not representative of Will necessarily. Indeed, most often morality is anti-ethics. This is entry-tier philosophy.

...

bad means un-beneficial, evil does not. it would be bad for the revolution if it did not kill counter-revolutionaries in the sense that it would have adverse effects upon it.

If the majority thinks rape is good then rape is good. suck it up, nerd.

Are you joking? This is the whole basis of Nietzsche's morals. Not basing good and bad on an arbitrary standard, but based on what makes you stronger, or into the Ubermench.

Good/Evil divide is slave morality which makes you feel pity for the weak. Good/Bad is master morality which makes you an edgelord and roman laarper. Not using good/evil morality means you use good/bad value distinctions, meaning you won't feel pity for rape victims. Someone saying rape is "bad" is using slave morality and feeling pity for the losers of life in Nietzsche's eyes.

The guy is an autistic faggot who thinks he really knows nietzsche because he read stuff on an MLM blog.

Master morality is not good/bad in the sense of pleasure, it's good/bad in the sense of utility. So once again, morality and Master morality is distinct from ethics.

Meh, you guys read back egalitarian thought onto Nietzsche. Every time I respond you just reaction image or name call so it's a waste of time talking to you.

...

Nietzsche's entire thing is transcendence, both physically and morally. The Last Man cannot be an egalitarian because the Last Man is an apolitical.

Good and bad was just judging how something personally would affect you based on usefulness. Slave morality was not doing something because someone told you not to(don't commit adultery) even if it serves you well.

Didn't he reject socialism?

On a practically liberal-tier reading of socialism, yes.

Explain

Much as I hate just dropping links.

lsus.edu/Documents/Offices and Services/CommunityOutreach/JournalOfIdeology/NietzscheonSocialismJournalofIdeologyRevised.pdf

False. Overcoming is the complete opposite of transcendence.
False. The last man is almost necessarily political whether that be democrat, Nazi or socialist. inb4 you think last man and overman are the same thing like the fucking retard you are.

How in the fuck is someone who is entirely without will the same as someone who has completely embraced it?

Whether his existence is a political being or not is a different thing from he himself being apolitical.

Nietzsche was a faggot butthurt that Stirner did everything he did better.

So your existence can revolve around politics exactly as Nietzsche describes the last man (cf prologue to Zarathustra), and yet he is apolitical? Sounds like you got a big ol existence vs essence spook you need to work on.

So how is he compatible with anarcho-communism again? I don't have time to read this whole thing right now so can you please summarize.

Not that guy, but that's not the description of the Last Man I remember at all from Zarathustra

It is literally impossible for someone's existence to be apolitical and still be a member of society because society is a political thing. However, the Last Man does not actively engage in what he thinks is political activity and he outright says this

My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on.

- Nietzsche

I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!

-Nietzsche

So, he was against dogmatic socialist? My only issue with this is that dogmatism is required in forming a movement. There are certain rules you must adhere to and preach. How would Nietzsche respond to a revolutionary who had no desire to rule(like an anarchist). Would he not have an issue with that?

Is this Thus Spoke Zarathustra? This is pretty cool, would you recommend starting with this or one of his more direct text.

didn't mean to sage lmao

His problem with socialism was that, as he understood it, it was a movement of unified proletariat, which is about as advanced as you can get from a liberal perspective. But it's specifically wrong because the socialist movement aims to end the concept of the proletariat, not to unify them.

And sure, it's not a bad read on its own.

it's a decent read. There are better books IMO but I think everyone should read it at least once.

This.
You just have to realize that the idea of "you" as a persistent person is false. I am not the person I was yesterday and I will not be the same person tomorrow. There is no point in selfish actions because they do not actually benefit me. I'd merely be choosing to favor one random future person over another.

The anarchist is the over man pretty much. The one with will to power but no need to dominate. It's not random that Goldman liked him.

Also spracht zarathustra is a great criticism of neoliberalism.