Nietzsche on Tort and Criminal law

Nietzsche says the following in his Second Essay on the Genealogy of Morals:

Buying and selling, together with their psychological appurtenances, are older even than the beginnings of any kind of social forms of organization and alliances: it was rather out of the most rudimentary form of personal legal rights that the budding sense of exchange, contract, guilt, right, obligation, settlement, first transferred itself to the coarsest and most elementary social complexes (in their relations with other similar complexes), together with the custom of comparing, measuring, and calculating power against power. The eye was now focused on this perspective; and with that blunt consistency characteristic of the thinking of primitive mankind, which is hard to set in motion but then proceeds inexorably in the same direction, one forthwith arrived at the great generalization, "everything has its price; all things can be paid for"—the oldest and naivest moral canon of justice, the beginning of all "good-naturedness," all "fairness," all "good will," all "objectivity" on earth. Justice on this elementary level is the good will among parties of approximately equal power to come to terms with one another, to reach an "understanding" by means of a settlement—and to compel parties of lesser power to reach a settlement among themselves.

Is it an indictment of our system of Justice (both Civil and Criminal)? Does this "moral canon of Justice" do our society harm? Aren't we, as a society and a species, better than this?

This quote has always troubled me . . .

Comments

Just wondering if you have

Just wondering if you have read Power vs. Force and/or any of the related writings of David Hawkins, and if so, what are your impressions? He offers a unique context within which to contemplate, differentiate and reconcile issues of social power, though doing so is not the primary purpose of his material.

Why don't you date your blog posts?

Thanks, but . . .

I haven't read any of Mr. Hawkins works and - after looking at the table of contents, reading some of the excerpts on amazon and taking a quick look at other works published by Hayhouse - I probably won't.

Honestly, it looks fluffy and pseudo-scientific. Anyone seeking to "map the energy fields of consciousness" goes directly into my goofball bin.

If you're interested in the history of consciousness and science, go read Dennett, Dawkins, Kripke, Foucault, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. Of course, in order to understand these guys, you'll need to grapple with the classics (Darwin, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, etc.).

If you still insist on the universal/spiritual stuff, go read something rewarding like Gregory Bateson.

With all this good, smart material out there, I just can't see how one would be enticed by works like Mr. Hawkins'.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options