We do not complain of nature as immoral
because it sends a thunderstorm and makes us wet,

— why do we call those who injure us immoral?
Because in the latter case we take for granted
a free will functioning voluntarily;
in the former we see necessity.

But this distinction is an error.
Thus we do not call even intentional injury Immoral in all circumstances;

for instance, we kill a fly unhesitatingly and intentionally,
only because its buzzing annoys us;
we punish a criminal intentionally and hurt him
in order to protect ourselves and society.

In the first case it is the individual who, in order to preserve himself,
or even to protect himself from worry, does intentional injury;
in the second case it is the State.

All morals allow intentional injury in the case of necessity,
that is, when it is a matter of self-preservation!

But these two points of view suffice to explain
all evil actions committed by men against men,
we are desirous of obtaining pleasure or avoiding pain;

in any case it is always a question of self-preservation.

Socrates and Plato are right: whatever man does he always does well,
that is, he does that which seems to him good (useful)
according to the degree of his intellect,
the particular standard of his reasonableness.

Human All Too Human, by Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. by Helen Zimmerman, aphorism 102

Before turning in last night I viewed a bit of the Jimmy Kimmel late night show.  A feature of the show involved interviewing Trump supporters on the street.  The interviewees, male and female, were asked about their thoughts/feelings to a pair of scenarios. Scenario #1, described words said or actions taken by Candidate Trump which the interviewer attributed to President Biden.  Then the interviewer presented another scenario to the interviewee which reversed the words/actions, that is, something said or done by the President was attributed to candidate Trump.  In every case the interviewees responded by unequivocal, unwavering support for their man, Donald J. Trump.  Never mind any of the details…

Am I tempted to conclude the interviewees are depraved, craven members of our species?

By Nietzsche’s lights these individuals are displaying the direction in which they are inclined for their own survival.  What are we really saying when we judge something to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’, more formally, ‘good’ or ‘evil’?  Survival!  That’s all.  That is the sum and substance of what we label good or evil.  Some of us conditioned to see survival as depending upon a father figure managing society according to his whim.  Others of us (myself included) see survival requiring another basis.

Everyone wants to survive according to their standard of reasonableness.  Survival is the point and nothing more.

I behave as I do because my habits of thought and action are felt to ensure my survival.  I am attracted to pleasure, to avoid pain by virtue of those habits.  And so it follows in the case of those who disagree with me.  Everyone takes aim at self-preservation, which all acclaim as a moral ‘good’.

And your point is?  There is a dimension of innocence in the opponents allegiances, behaviors — nothing inherently ‘evil’ meriting my hatred.  Each has involuntarily adopted a different standard.

Does that make the stakes any less?

Perhaps what is at stake is even greater than I thought…

And things will run their course, play out.  As they always have…