The Mechanics of Virtue, aphorism 259
259
Anyone for whom the loss of morality remains – “nothing is forbidden” – has yet to begin. For if he is sincere, his next question is inevitable: “But then, if nothing is forbidden what shall I do with this greater range of possibilities?” And wouldn't he be foolish not to cull out of this mess the greatest of available possibilities? And in doing so, does he not also appeal to a standard for judgment? ... to the fact that within a view supposedly without values, he has already projected a value ... even if he expresses it as, “Nihilism is superior to this counterfeit morality” ... ? In short, he requires a discipline equal to the task presented by the overwhelming possibilities presented by nihilism -- and this is a moral event.
This is a contradiction of course, but then the nihilist and the moralist are only conceptual opposites; they are also however stages within a single behavioral sequence. The loss of an existing morality brings with it the realization that “anything goes,” but which in turn releases a greater number of possibilities for which it then requires a greater discipline to master ... a greater personal morality with which to bring one's highest possibility within one's own control.
Even if one proposes the pursuit of pleasure, one quickly faces obstacles or unpleasant consequences one had not anticipated, and thus the pursuit of pleasure itself quickly requires a strategic approach in order to secure the greatest degree and type of pleasure in one's next attempt at indulgence. Thus, to say that there is a choice within an intelligent nihilist's view quickly presents a contradiction to the intellect, for to make a choice presupposes a standard for judgment, and a standard for judgment is a morality. It does not matter if we call it, “Ethics,” “knack,” “nihilism,” “harness,” “honor,” “supreme pleasure,” etc., ... We resolve competing values and, resolving them, presuppose a standard, or, to take a more fundamental perspective, projectors of value -- and this remains true whether or not one is conscious of the valuation.
For example, in fleeing from institutional morality, the nihilist cuts every cord. He requires “nothing is forbidden” in order to free himself, but once outside of those walls, he is confronted with the choice, “Where next?” He sees “living life to the fullest” as a wise goal and can no longer admit himself to be a nihilist, in the sense that he requires a self-strategy which is more worthy of the air-vibration -- “Morality” -- than is that institutional harness he has just gnawed through. The same sorts of straps and buckles with which his institutions had harnessed him to their own ends, he now requires to harness himself to his own highest possible gratification. But first he had to free himself from institutional “morality.”
We could come upon the greatest moralist of all time, and we should not doubt that the majority will consider him an advocate of nihilism and not our guide through it. For he knew that we could only follow him into nihilism but not out again. His morality is herd-independent. It is one's necessarily private strategy toward self-control, clarity of thought, and self-affirming achievement. Therefore his greatest message was “Nothing is forbidden” ... but he knew that that was far from the truth, that it was only the necessary door away from him and toward our own genuine morality.