Forgive me if I'm misremembering, but I think this was precisely the =
scenario Nietzsche analyzed in his "God is dead" hypothesis. That =
is, if there is no God, the only reason for conformance to =
conventional morality is in order to make sure other people treat =
you nicely. Politics, not piety, in your terms. That was okay for =
normal people, but that wasn't the highest morality. To Nietzsche, =
a "superman" was someone who realized that God was dead, and that =
morality was a useful convention, but that those who dared could go =
beyond that, "beyond morality."
In more Heisenbergian terms, the important thing was not so much to =
be moral, but never to be caught being immoral. Or as Socrates =
would say, isn't the appearance of morality the best cover for being =
immoral?
I think we can all agree that it works better for everyone if the =
majority of people act "morally" most of the time, for a suitable =
definition of morality. The hard question is why is it important =
for -me- to act morally, when I can arguably be better off by acting =
against social convention. In the absence of any sort of divine =
judgement, the only rationale is our tortured conscience. But to =
Nietzsche, the superman is someone who has killed his conscience. =
Hitler was a failure because he was insufficiently competent to =
realize his vision, not because his premise was flawed.
So, would Rohitian theology survive a Nietzchian heresy?
-- Ernie P.