Nietzsche Opposed Human Exceptionalism Too
The nihilism unleashed by Nietzsche has caused more harm and suffering than can ever be measured. It turns out that much of the themes of anti-human exceptionalism we see today come right out of his playbook. For example, last week I criticized a University of Wisconsin professor named Deborah Blum for not knowing whether we--or hyenas--are the moral species. From my post:
Blum clearly yearns for animal "morality" to be something more: "My only complaint is that the book [her review of which I was quoting] is overly careful. The authors try too hard to keep their conclusions non-threatening. I wish they'd attempted to answer that tricky question that nags at me whenever I study a captive animal. As I stand on the unrestricted side of a fence watching a hyena, and it watches me back with deep, wary eyes, which one of us is really the moral animal?"It turns out Nietzsche said the same thing as Blum a hundred years ago:
Humanity--We do not regard the animals as moral beings. But do you suppose the animals regard us as moral beings?...An animal which could speak said: "Humanity is a prejudice of which we animals at least are free."Denying human exceptionalism leads to darkness, suffering, and death. It is very disturbing that Friedrich Nietzsche, in his growing darkness, espoused the very anti-humanism that has entered the scientific/bioethical mainstream.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:14 PM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
I believe firmly that Nietzsche had a firm hand in influencing Hitler, even though he was dead for several years when WWII began. I was horrified when one of my teachers recently said what I great example Nietzsche was/praised his philosophy and seemed bemused at my shock.
Nietzsche was a syphilitic madman. I don't pay him any attention.
Please move along now.
Yes, well alas, a lot of people did and do pay attention. He changed history.
Nietzsche, in his growing darkness, espoused the very anti-humanism that has entered the scientific/bioethical mainstream.
This is not what Nietzsche said when referring to "Ubermensch". That man defines his own values, not God, and is driven by a love for this life. He supports some of your concepts of HE. He argues that ultimately the desire to become greater and more "exceptional" drives men away from egalitarianism in a gravitational pursuit of power.
The "Ubermensch" didn't support Human Exceptionalism for one good reason - the "Ubermensch" was someone who saw other humans as being beneath him (think of the "Brights" for example) and looked for a way to exploit others.
Human Exceptionalism says that all human beings - because of our inherent ability to understand good/evil, kindness/cruelty, and morality (something other animals cannot understand) - have equal worth and are exceptional to other animals and other parts of nature. Human Exceptionalism says that all humans, including the mentally and physically disabled and people who are poor, are exceptional and should be treated with absolute dignity.
The "Ubermensch" is a scheming conniver who wants whatever he wants for himself and doesn't give a darn about anybody else. That's not human exceptionalism. That's being stuck-up at best, or a Hitler at worst.
Tabs: Wonderful explanation of HE!
Firstly, I stated Nietzsche's Ubermensch supported "some of the concepts" also supported by HE, in that humans are capable of greater things than any other species on earth in response to Wesley's assertion that Nietzsche was anti-human.
To directly address that point you may want to explain how Ubermensch is anti-humanism instead of explaining why it isn't HE.
But to address your point, I agree, Ubermensch is in opposition an egalitarianism which seems to be the same basis of HE, and that all humans have the same capacity to inherently determine right from wrong.
Out of curiouslity how can HE rationalize the fact that some criminals are prosecuted with lesser crimes because they are are deemed mentally unstable.
It appears the law supports the biological notion that some humans are not able to determine the distinction between right and wrong as well as others, suggesting inequality of rational ability among humans.
How does HE contend with this issue? Or does it?
Dark Swan: HE says the issue is irrelevant. HE does not claim people have equal capacities, talents, looks, intelligence, or any other such measurement. It contends that regardless of these, each human has objective moral worth, entitling each to certain basic rights, e.g., the right not to be used as an object or an instrumentality.
HE does not promote egalitarianism in the sense of equal outcomes, and in fact, prosecutors making such law enforcement decisions have to do with our attempt to make law just, which is a difficult balance considering all of the issues that come into play. In fact, some crimes require a certain intent, and one's capacity to form said intent is often quite relevant to the crimes charged.
'To directly address that point you may want to explain how Ubermensch is anti-humanism instead of explaining why it isn't HE.'
I'm not entirely sure I understand that, since HE *is* humanism - all humans, regardless of race, age, mental capacity, law-abiding or criminal, are equally valuable and should be treated with equal dignity.
Like... Okay, did anybody other than me see the movie "The Dark Knight?" The latest Batman movie.
There's a scene at one point where two barges carrying people from an island are rigged to blow up. One ship has ordinary, law-abiding citizens on it, the other ship has criminals of various degree of crime on it. Both ships had a detenator that would blow up the other ship. The Joker said that if one ship wasn't blown, then he'd blow up both.
I need to set the stage to make the point.
At one point the law-abiding citizens are freaking out, fearing for their lives, and one of them makes a move to blow up the ship of criminals, only the citizen can't do it. Because, ultimately, he can't throw them away saying, "They've made their choice, they're evil, and they deserve to die more than we do!" It isn't right. Likewise, the criminals don't blow up the other ship.
Batman saves the day, natch, and nobody blows up, but that's beside the point.
The point is, HE says that all those people have equal worth, that they all have absolute worth, and that they needed to be treated with human dignity. HE says that when you look at people outside of yourself, you see them as being equal to your own worth, and you see them as *people,* not objects.
The "Ubermensch," on the other hand, sees people outside himself as objects to be used, discarded, or abused. HE says, "What can I do for the good of myself *and* my neighbor *and* my society." The "Ubermensch" says, "What can I do for my good and how can I *use* my neighbors and my society to get exactly what I want?"
That's how I see the "Ubermensch" as being anti-humanist. He's too self-centered to think about other humans, either individually or as a group. HE acknowledges that we have to treat our own selves well and look out for ourselves, protect ourselves and get ourselves to grow, but never at the expense of other "selves," that is, other people.
Tabs: Once again, applause.
P.S. -
You know, I just realized that "The Dark Knight" is an excellent example of what I was talking about because it *has* an "Ubermensch" in it - the Joker!
He's someone who's "beyond good and evil." He doesn't think or care about morality at all. All he cares about is doing whatever he feels like doing whenever he feels like doing it, and he'll exploit others to get whatever he wants whenever he wants it.
Meanwhile, you have the main good characters, who have some pretty bad flaws, but at various points they put the good of society and others above their own good, based on their belief that others are of equal importance to their own "selves."
If you haven't seen the movie, I haven't given away anything important to the plot itself, but I say, SEE IT! It's the whole HE vs. Ubermensch arguemnt demonstrated much better than I can describe it, and anyway, Heath Ledger was *awesome* in it (may he rest in peace).
Actually Tabs: He doesn't just want what he wants, he wants others to be complicit. Joker is one of the great movie villains because is isn't just interested in doing bad things to gain money, or fame, or the girl, or revenge: He seeks to prove that all of us are just as amoral--or evil, take your pick--as he is. Very much the way of the ubermensch.
Wesley -
That's right! I hadn't thought of that, but that was the point of giving both barges detenators - to force them into sacrificing each other. His thinking was that because *he* was so warped, then our thinking would be likewise warped. So he assumed that either 1) the good citizens would hold themselves to be of a higher morality than the criminals and blow the criminals up, and 2) the criminals would be wholely corrupt no matter what, and would blow the citizens up out of greed for life.
Human Exceptionalism says that we have to look at all people, criminals included, as *people* first, because we're all human and thus all exceptional. That's why torture is outlawed in civilized countries.
Some states do have a death penalty, with the feeling being partly that death would be a deterrent, but partly also that a person who is a constant threat to society cannot live safely in any environment and must be removed, permenanately.
When seen as a means of *vengence,* though, the death penalty might be harmful to the people who kill the criminal, because they make a moral judgement that another human is lesser than they are. We can't afford to think of any person as being "less equal" than others. At the same time, we have to work to protect law-abiding citizens.
Ultimately, I don't think anyone can say for certain whether the death penalty takes away from human exceptionalism because there are *so* many factors involved in it. All I'm saying is that whatever punishments we use in the US for criminal behavior, we should never let our need to consider the safety of others degrade the humanity of a criminal. They may be bad people, but they're bad *people.* Not animals.
Naturally, we focuse on bio-ethics here, so we SHOULD NOT get into a debate over capital punishment, but I wanted to make that comment because of what DarkSwan said about diminished capacity affecting crime and the fact that I mentioned the criminals in the barge earlier.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home