What if I told you it's us. Perhaps other countries push for their own interests but this struggle is something inherent within all humans.
An eternal struggle between the strong and the weak.
Nietzsche explained it the best I can think of:
"Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality
In master morality, individuals define what is good based on whether it benefits that person and their pursuit of self-defined personal excellence...
Unlike master morality, which is sentiment, slave morality is based on re-sentiment—devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have. As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as "good".
Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength, but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility: The good is what is most useful for the whole community, not just the strong."
I'm no Nietzsche expert, but something smells off here.
If slave morality is born of "the [idea that the] good is what is most useful for the whole community, not just the strong" - AND - if slave morality is also based "devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have" - then I think we have a invalid argument.
You can't want what is good for everybody while at the same time devaluing what others cherish.
That only works if your definition of "good" is destruction. If so, then whoever wrote the wikipedia article is just out to confuse. I suspect Nietzsche is way too subtle for such nonsense.
I actually ordered the book this is based on so I'll be reading it then I'll report back.
I didn't quote the whole thing but the wiki writer also says "Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction"
I actually think it makes sense. It's literally exactly what the left is doing. They've embraced that contradiction. We know their values and beliefs don't actually bring good for everyone and they are inherently destructive. They simply set the stage for a new master morality to take over.
Right but anyone who ends up in the have-not side of the spectrum for whatever reason isn't going to accept this world-view because they want more themselves. They don't care if they don't truly deserve it, they'll twist morality around to suggest they do deserve it because it's in their nature.
Agreed BUT it was because those principals were enforced in society. I don't think people realized just how strict society used to be. Atheists might not have been able to teach kids for example. We enforced those principals on people.
Unfortunately, the right has taken "freedom" to the extreme and thinks everyone can and should do whatever they want but that is the belief that got us in this mess. That is literally the slave morality inversion. Society should enforce strict objective morality and it should be rooted in Judeo-Christian principals because those morals are rooted in strength. It's about becoming a better person, being morally virtuous yet humble and not entitled. But you must enforce the principals and shape society in a manner that adheres to these principals. As soon as you say you can do whatever you want without consequence, people undermine the principals. Unrighteousness should not be tolerated.
What if I told you it's us. Perhaps other countries push for their own interests but this struggle is something inherent within all humans.
An eternal struggle between the strong and the weak.
Nietzsche explained it the best I can think of:
"Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality
In master morality, individuals define what is good based on whether it benefits that person and their pursuit of self-defined personal excellence...
Unlike master morality, which is sentiment, slave morality is based on re-sentiment—devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have. As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as "good".
Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength, but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility: The good is what is most useful for the whole community, not just the strong."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
Sound familiar, doesn't it?
I'm no Nietzsche expert, but something smells off here.
If slave morality is born of "the [idea that the] good is what is most useful for the whole community, not just the strong" - AND - if slave morality is also based "devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have" - then I think we have a invalid argument.
You can't want what is good for everybody while at the same time devaluing what others cherish.
That only works if your definition of "good" is destruction. If so, then whoever wrote the wikipedia article is just out to confuse. I suspect Nietzsche is way too subtle for such nonsense.
I actually ordered the book this is based on so I'll be reading it then I'll report back.
I didn't quote the whole thing but the wiki writer also says "Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction"
I actually think it makes sense. It's literally exactly what the left is doing. They've embraced that contradiction. We know their values and beliefs don't actually bring good for everyone and they are inherently destructive. They simply set the stage for a new master morality to take over.
"Oppressors" that not only create jobs and opportunity for others, but in many cases willfully donate charitably to uplift those around them.
Right but anyone who ends up in the have-not side of the spectrum for whatever reason isn't going to accept this world-view because they want more themselves. They don't care if they don't truly deserve it, they'll twist morality around to suggest they do deserve it because it's in their nature.
Not universally. The have-nots are not a unified psychological archetype. Some will wallow in misery and fling mud. Others will work hard to climb up.
Both ends of the success spectrum need more biblical principles as their moral foundation. When we largely had them, society was better for it.
The decadence and decline we are seeing now is directly correlated to the absence of those principles.
Agreed BUT it was because those principals were enforced in society. I don't think people realized just how strict society used to be. Atheists might not have been able to teach kids for example. We enforced those principals on people.
Unfortunately, the right has taken "freedom" to the extreme and thinks everyone can and should do whatever they want but that is the belief that got us in this mess. That is literally the slave morality inversion. Society should enforce strict objective morality and it should be rooted in Judeo-Christian principals because those morals are rooted in strength. It's about becoming a better person, being morally virtuous yet humble and not entitled. But you must enforce the principals and shape society in a manner that adheres to these principals. As soon as you say you can do whatever you want without consequence, people undermine the principals. Unrighteousness should not be tolerated.