Society's rules and religion are flawed... but isnt the idea of the "ubermensch" flawed as well?

Question

on one hand you have the moralist who follows the groundless and arbitrary rules society and religion spoon feeds us. obsessed with material posession and driven my money all to be seen as "special" by there peers. there "morals" groundless and based on religion who forbids them to think outside of the box. this thinking is flawed and shows itself flawed. just look at the state of the world

and then on the other hand, you have the "ubermensch". the one who has no morals, lives by hedonism and is in control of himself and his life. almost an anrachist. following no institution, no moral code, he is a free spirit and his life is a playground to make himself happy. however this wont work either. if everyone were this way, we would all destroy ourselves. no order, no rules, it would be chaos and eventualy the world of anarchists and "free spirits" would self destruct.

so then how should we live? people say do what makes you happy. what if the latter IS what makes you happy?

Answer 1

It is an error to suppose that there is such a thing as an absolute moral code; it is equally an error to suppose that one cannot or should not develop a moral code suitable to the circumstances.  Moral codes derive from evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species; a society which adheres to a sound moral code will survive preferably to one that does not.  Since actions such as theft and murder are inimical to most any society, these are universally condemned.  Religious claims to be definers or arbiters of morality are bogus, as you correctly note.

Answer 2

You missed a very important aspect of the Ubermensch.

There is a reason that they have no morals. They don't need them!

Nietzsche was decrying the idea that laws are in place to provide people guidance out of fear of punishment. Don't do this, or you will be punished. Don't sin, or you will be sent to h**l. The Ubermensche doesn't do what is right because he is fearful of the consequences, he does them because they are the virtuous thing to do.

He is a hedonist, but that is misleading. Hedonism is an umbrella term that simply means that it is moral to maximize pleasure. Pleasure comes in many varieties;  Nietzsche certainly would not have called the Paris Hiltons of the world virtuous because they go out every night and party and get drunk.

His form of hedonism was that they live life according to their passions, according to what makes them happy. Is it really so immoral to suggest that we ought to live our lives in a manner that makes us happy? Isn't that what Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Ghandi fought for? That men ought to be happy and live in kindness and generosity with one another?

You make the mistake of assuming that we can know the minds of the Ubermensch. Nietzsche would say that you don't, and don't take this the wrong way, but you are reacting to the Ubermensch exactly as he said a member of the slave morality would. He did not believe that there were any true ubermensch that had lived yet, but he does name some individuals who came close. oddly enough, despite his rejection of Christianity, he cites Jesus Christ as an example of a man who came as close as any human has ever come to being an Ubermensch. If every man lived like Jesus, would the world not be a better place? That's not as how the Christians envision it; as a place where people prostrate themselves at the foot of God, but those who live according to their own morals, beyond the boundaries of what people say that a person ought to live by.

Did the industrial revolution occur by the direction of kings or monarchs? Or did it happen when men started to awaken to the idea of liberty? Are men preferable as free spirits, or as slaves and slave-masters?