Nietzsche: Fascist or Freedom Fighter? Part IV

Now that we have assessed Nietzsche’s doctrine of power, and have seen that it is neither race restrictive, nor malevolent in intention, it is time to assess the Nietzschean conception of morality. Morality to Nietzsche is beyond good and evil, and only rests in one’s conscience whether guilty or not. In the second section of the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche concludes that guilt is the true result of all bad actions. However, as for the conceptions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ themselves, they are too hollow and restrictive. This article will explain Nietzschean morality.
In the first article I wrote for theSOP I presented the question; whether or not there exist flexible moral truths in religions? The conclusion that I came to was generated from Buddhism—namely skillful means, the art of bending morals for a greater good. As eloquently stated in the Lotus Sutra, morals must sometimes give way for even higher ideals, such as an instance of lying to save a life or many lives. This is what Nietzsche meant by the term amoral, not some kind of sociopathic moral nihilism, where no actions could bring with them guilt and suffering. But rather an instinctive value system based on human nature.
‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are fictions. According to Nietzsche, there is really only good and bad action, not some kind supernatural presence dictating and judging one’s deeds based on a simple law book. In this manner, mankind must ignore the rigid rules and hypocrisies laden in the ethics of Abrahamic religion, and follow their instincts, their will-to-power and their freedom. Nietzsche knew much more about Christianity than he did about Buddhism. However, it appears he knew enough about Buddhism to generate a sharpened ethical theory—suited for humanity.