Morality, immorality and evolution

Immoral is not only “that which brings about ruin” as Nietzsche put it, it is also that which devolves, or that which does not evolve. This valuation brings us back to the real material object in morality rather than a morality completely divorced from the material world, as religion and philosophy have been too prone to be.

Nietzsche rightly asked the question, “whose will-to-power is morality?” Morality can even be the work of immorality when it is not attached to the real world or to the rising and falling of evolution. This can lead to the corruption of human physiology and psychology, and to inauthentic culture.

A problem comes when Nietzsche makes a God of brilliant individual power rather than long-term evolution toward Godhood, which requires the group as well as the individual. The libertarians make this same mistake in making the individual the all. The challenge, as Raymond Cattell pointed out, is for society to tell the difference between positive social creativity and negative antisocial creativity among exceptional individuals, who tend to be the leading edge of culture, good or bad.

The herd-mentality, as Nietzsche called it, is not necessary out to rid society of exceptional individuals, altruism takes place in group selection, which is the main unit of selection in evolution---social altruism in this way is needed for long-term evolution to take place. Nietzsche was right to try to bring morality back to reality, but it takes more than brilliant individuals to make it happen when long-term evolution is the goal.

Tradition this way can be harmonized with the progressive change of evolution, which is what a  revitalized conservatism does. Nietzsche's radical aristocratic individualism for this reason is not the best way to go.