Was Nietzsche a moral relativist? Why or why not...

Was Nietzsche a moral relativist? Why or why not? I'm gathering arguments from both sides across the internet and can't get a clear answer.

Attached: neetszche.jpg (1200x1200, 249K)

Meta-ethical nihilist, some adhere to the belief that moral-relativism ultimately results in meta-ethical nihilism, but that's up for debate.

It is not up for debate, however, whether or not Nietsche was a meta-ethical nihilist, or "moral nihilist". This is evident from the very first books he wrote to the very last notes he wrote.

I don't know why you made such a stupid fucking thread instead of just reading the guy, or at least, skimming through the guy's Wiki page. I wish I could sage.

He wrote a book on how the concepts of Good and Evil changed, IN RELATION, to historical development

He was not a moral relativist in any sense of the word, much less a nihilist. He despised nihilists and his famous phrase, "God is dead" is not thrown at religious people, but precisely at the anti-religious people of his time. These people were becoming nihilists after the death of God, and they couldn't perceive it.

I have a suggestion: READ NIETSZCHE

No, but he didn't believe in a strict morality- at least for that time. Where some may claim that he desired a renewing principle of morality which bared character to what he said but primarily his saying was an attempt in the act of this and not the statement of the new itself.

This is in all likeliness and almost certainly exaggeration but it's onto something.

To be fair he writes like a schizo fuck aphorisms

to the degree he thinks morality is plastic, yes. to the degree he thinks anything you do is moral, no. he thought there is a certain objective practice to morality that transcends all particular moral values (the transvaluation of all values)

t. braindead anglo

nah, he wrote with the blood and the soul of the best Greek and Roman writers.

op here. i have been reading him but i'm a halfwit. my assessment is yes he is a moral relativist

You're asking if Nietzsche, the man who said that there are no facts and only interpretations, if he was a moral relativist? Come on. In The Antichrist, he starts off by juxtaposing his moral perspective against the Christian's by saying that he sees good and bad rather than good and evil.

Everything, literally EVERYTHING, is relative in Nietzsche's view.

Have you considered actually reading Nietzsche?

Fuck you it's so annoying to follow only a schizo will come up with an excuse for not creating paragraphs that logically progress

They're easier to follow than your punctuation-less run-on sentences.

Jesus what a low IQ take

To you, an arrogant retard who doesn't understand.

>Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra
>says that people have to abandon morality
>few pages later he's talking about how important morality is

Attached: confused-gif-reaction-15.gif (352x264, 1.99M)

not him but that is a very low IQ take. the will to power isn't relative in the slightest

The will to power is described as a "twofold falsification" where becoming becomes being in his notes. Take that as you will.

He advocates an active nihilism to end passive nihilism . Read his works and not the fraud scholars

Remember kids--- read Will to Power . Faggot academics ignore it cuz the teaching in there is "natzee"