# Materialism and Morality - An Answer to the Problem?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 6, 2006)

Anyone have any thoughts on the following excerpt from the writings of a Materialist/Naturalist colleague of mine? 



> ... Does Nietzsche mean that we can do what we please and it should be of no consequence? I don't have that answer. As someone that would identify his self as somewhat of a Nietzschean, this problem is something I must face on a regular basis. If there are no moral phenomenon, only our moral interpretations of phenomenon, then Nietzsche could not see the death camps [of the Holocaust] as evil ...
> 
> Where does this leave me, a Nietzschean? Am I to accept this fate (amor fati) decreed by Nietzsche? I do agree that there are no moral phenomenon. Actions, appearances and things are only judged based on our interpretations, our taste if you will. Breaking the law is of another matter. I am not concerned with that for this discussion. Murder is just one more action. There are no moral actions. A circle has closed for me. Do I accept this closure?
> 
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 9, 2006)

I was hoping to get some good discussion on this. Anyone care to respond?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 11, 2006)




----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 11, 2006)

I wonder why he jumps to the idea that we should act in such a way that we would like others to act toward us. Does materialism demand that conclusion? Does he even know why he would rather not be murdered? Is it fear of discomfort or of what? 

Even if materialism does require the conclusion, then the process by which we codify permissible acts becomes complicated. Do we go with majority rule? The whims of the majority are fickle.

So if we decide that majority rule isn't the answer, then we must come up with an alternative. A king perhaps, or an elite group who determines how we should desire others to treat us.

Except then we get into that nasty idea "should". That supposes a standard of some kind. Does the mere fact that we share flesh point to such a standard? That is the question he will have to answer, I think, before he can be consistent.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 11, 2006)

I'm not sure he's concerned with being consistent. Most postmodern materialists have figured out that they cannot be either rational or consistent, so they usually end up being obsessed with phenomenology or other forms of subjective epistemology.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 11, 2006)

I'd certainly think that being a postmodern Nietzschean would make one confused. It sounds like he is grasping for an objective epistemology but doesn't realize it. An example of Romans 1:20.


----------



## srhoades (Apr 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> I'd certainly think that being a postmodern Nietzschean would make one confused. It sounds like he is grasping for an objective epistemology but doesn't realize it. An example of Romans 1:20.



I think he does realize the consequences of an objective epistemology which is why we can not stand the taste of it in his mouth. But I definately agree, depraved mind.


----------

