Is living immorally good?

In The Origins of Herd Morality, Nietzsche presents several ideas that are similar to those advanced by Thrasymachus. He characterizes certain drives as strong and dangerous. Most of these drives, being drives that are generally found to be immoral by society as a whole. Nietzsche’s ideas seem to correlate with Thrasymachus’ idea of morality being the good of another, what is advantageous for the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves when he calls fear the mother of morality. However, Thrasymachus suggests that he who is immoral especially on the large scale is the person who is in the grand scheme of things, considered to be stronger and with great power, freer and more masterful as compared to those who are moral.

            Additionally, Nietzsche mentions, “a superior independent intellect, a will to stand alone, even superior rationality, are felt to be dangers;” and even labeled as evil. This sounds similar to the idea advanced by Thrasymachus, which says that those who act immoral on a large scale, for example by taking the possessions of the citizens and then kidnapping and enslaving the possessors as well being thought of positively even though this is considered an immoral act by most. Essentially, this is a danger to the ones eligible to be enslaved and kidnapped and the person, by superior rationality is able to become a danger to the aforementioned weaker people. All in all, although he is viewed as evil, at the end of the day he is more powerful, freer and more masterful than someone who acts morally. In this sense, the ideas of Thrasymachus and Nietzsche are similar. By these views, it seems that living immorally is not so bad after all. However, these are views that most do not agree with.