Just getting into beyond good and evil, and it spawned a interesting thought inside my head.

So I ask you this question; Do you think you could, and humanity can drop what they feel is right and wrong in the interest of human preservation? Do you think you could explore natural things such as homosexuality, pedophilia, heterosexual sex, drugs, free thoughts, etc. These are just few I'm thinking about, but there are obviously many more things that people have grouped into good and evil labeling. Would you give up your morality for improved function and peace within the human race?

Honestly, I think I already have. I can look at anything and talk candidly about it's negatives and positives that can be found without establishing it as right and wrong, but merely for what it just is. I'm going to keep reading, but I thought this would make a good topic as I haven't seen it hear yet. I know those particular topics have been argued here, and most posters had obvious bias that kept them from really looking at the issue in a healthy way. Just my observation.

I know myself and I know for sure I'd give up a whole lot for sake of being God. Like sacrificing others or judging people's actions by myself.

I know myself and I know for sure I'd give up a whole lot for sake of being God. Like sacrificing others or judging people's actions by myself.

Please clarify, cause I'm a little confused what you mean. One way to interpret what you've said is that you'd give up sacrificing others and judging people's actions by yourself to be god. The other way, which I actually think you meant, is that you'd give up your bias and judgmental thoughts to become god so that you could sacrifice others and judge people's actions? Little bit of a contradiction don't you think? Maybe God doesn't judge, he just lets all things come to be without bias?

I see your point.

In order to become a God I would sacrifice others or judge other people all by myself. To sit upon the highest throne would be to great a price for me to let go.

this is basically a morality question and ethics. society has deemed certain things, for whatever reason, to be taboo, and unacceptable. whether or not they have any functionality in the preservation of humanity, that is subjective.

but honestly, what would we have to drop to preserve humanity? the birth rate is already ahead of the death rate, so technically we are far ahead in preserving humanity.

but perhaps we have to give up planet earth itself - to move off of our home world and to advance ourselves out into space would greatly strengthen the chances that humanity will survive into the eons. or perhaps we need to give up religions, nationality, and all forms of government to help us combine into a universal state of "human beings" not the race and citizenship we use to classify people. or perhaps we need to give up individuality, and become like automatons working for our preservation under the direction of...some force we all see as being truth.

and even if we do give up all of this, this doesn't mean anything more than the hopeful preservation. it doesn't account for happiness or peace.

Preservation means nothing to me. The weak will be automatically severed from the strong in times of great danger. Humans are designed to survive, they will forsake all what they were taught about morals, ethics, etc if their lives were to be at stake.

I think that the greatest human invention is an idea. A government, law, economics, are all ideas. They can't be touched perse but they are there. This is possible because humans have ideas. I would protect those ideas even if all others turn and flee or turn against eachother. Yes, I might be the one worst off but if I succeed, would I not be God?

Number one on my list of morals is to have a moral code. The rest is irrelevant.

(ie) People don't know shit, even if they know what they had for dinner.

Then you are not human to me, go die somewhere where you don't bother us.

Ofcourse, I didn't meant that to offend you but thats how I see it on the finite scale Nietzsche introduces to a conversation.

Preservation means nothing to me. The weak will be automatically severed from the strong in times of great danger. Humans are designed to survive, they will forsake all what they were taught about morals, ethics, etc if their lives were to be at stake.

I think that the greatest human invention is an idea. A government, law, economics, are all ideas. They can't be touched perse but they are there. This is possible because humans have ideas. I would protect those ideas even if all others turn and flee or turn against eachother. Yes, I might be the one worst off but if I succeed, would I not be God?
if you live, that means you are simply the last remaining effort to preservation. that's all humans can do when it comes down to it, and this goes for basically every living organism: you can keep beings like yourself alive by reproducing. ideas and the like are all shit compared to the preservation of the beings themselves.

and no, you wouldn't be "God" you would just be another human. no matter how much you protect or sacrifice something, you are never more than what you are born as.

if you live, that means you are simply the last remaining effort to preservation. that's all humans can do when it comes down to it, and this goes for basically every living organism: you can keep beings like yourself alive by reproducing. ideas and the like are all shit compared to the preservation of the beings themselves.

and no, you wouldn't be "God" you would just be another human. no matter how much you protect or sacrifice something, you are never more than what you are born as.

I'm considerably more than what I was born as, interms of mass, intelligence, mobility etc....

But maybe this isn;t what you meant :D

To answer OP:
No, I don;t think that people can give up there morality for a smoother working society, unless we indoctrinate people from birth or some shit.

Not to mention people more or less do what they want now.
And morality is somethng that will be there regardless, we all feel somethings are wrong, and what are we gonna do when somone goes on a killing/raping/maiming spree? We probaly gonna stop them, which I'm pretty sure involves morality.

I'm considerably more than what I was born as, interms of mass, intelligence, mobility etc....

But maybe this isn;t what you meant :D

To answer OP:
No, I don;t think that people can give up there morality for a smoother working society, unless we indoctrinate people from birth or some shit.

Not to mention people more or less do what they want now.
And morality is somethng that will be there regardless, we all feel somethings are wrong, and what are we gonna do when somone goes on a killing/raping/maiming spree? We probaly gonna stop them, which I'm pretty sure involves morality.

Yes I fully agree, morality does have a place. I think what is important though, is to not let morality restrict establishing morality itself. I'm thinking that this is what Nietzsche was thinking when it came to philosophy. That by seeing things as wrong and right, we can't enter a higher level of philosophy unrestricted by present philosophy. Essentially, I was merely saying that we can create a better system of morality within our society, but to do so, we have to think without the bias of the current one, which is really a hard thing to do.

That's why I brought up things like pedophilia. We can't explore something like pedophilia while having a bias. Thinking about it with no bias brings questions to my mind like; What affects children worse, a child being exposed to sexuality, or a society that treats that child as a victim? Are there positive and negative forms of pedophilia? Is a pedophile and a sexual predator the same?

Of course, this is a topic that is no longer allowed to be discussed here, I'm merely illustrating constructive thought on the topic to show my point. It's too bad it can't be discussed, but I know it can't because most of us here can't discuss it hypothetically without bringing our bias into the situation and ruining the discussion. I feel it really inhibits our ability to handle this fact of life constructively to create a sense of morality around it that brings more function and isolates less.

I think this could also be applied to discussions about race, culture, sexuality, murder. I think it would rather be fascinating to have such a discussion here with no bias or opinion, just free thoughts without coming to any conclusion, just for the sake of exploring the taboos of society. However, I do not believe we have such a community here, and most of us are here to show our bias and are very unlikely or incapable to think completely openly despite it. I kind of agree with the moderators limiting discussions because of this fact. It's a nice pipe dream though.

wow, i bought that book on the weekend.

wow, i bought that book on the weekend.

It's pretty good so far. I think I'm going to read some more of his works plus others once I'm done. It's really opened my mind to philosophy and really makes me feel at home. Thinking about going to university, maybe part-time just to take philosophy and a few other courses. Mainly to broaden my perspective and find some other like minded people who I can talk with outside of the internet.

It's pretty good so far. I think I'm going to read some more of his works plus others once I'm done. It's really opened my mind to philosophy and really makes me feel at home. Thinking about going to university, maybe part-time just to take philosophy and a few other courses. Mainly to broaden my perspective and find some other like minded people who I can talk with outside of the internet.

I tried to read that book about a month ago. Sorry to say I didn't understand most of it, although of a few of his aphorisms and semi-coherent ramblings on the prejudices of philosophers were pretty memorable for me. Are you just better at comprehending what you read, or do you have a background in philosophy, or what?

I wrote a paper on this book. I really enjoyed it and how it covered so many different topics, especially his talk of the "new philosophers."

I tried to read that book about a month ago. Sorry to say I didn't understand most of it, although of a few of his aphorisms and semi-coherent ramblings on the prejudices of philosophers were pretty memorable for me. Are you just better at comprehending what you read, or do you have a background in philosophy, or what?

I have the same writing style and scattered thinking. He's a tangent thinker. Most people who think like that are diagnosed with ADD these days. It's like having constant thoughts streaming through your head. The trick is learning to not get distracted while this is going on, and following thoughts that add something to the subject. That's why he shifts topics and then it cycles back. I'm really getting good at utilizing it now.
I believe It's consciously viewing your subconscious thought stream. The problem with this is that it creates a fine line between sanity and insanity. If you don't lose the ability to control it, you're a genius.

I have the same writing style and scattered thinking. He's a tangent thinker. Most people who think like that are diagnosed with ADD these days. It's like having constant thoughts streaming through your head. The trick is learning to not get distracted while this is going on, and following thoughts that add something to the subject. That's why he shifts topics and then it cycles back. I'm really getting good at utilizing it now.
I believe It's consciously viewing your subconscious thought stream. The problem with this is that it creates a fine line between sanity and insanity. If you don't lose the ability to control it, you're a genius.

Thanks, I'll try the book again.