TRUMP: BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL

I just tried to digest the audiobook Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) 

It’s quite obscure, difficult to understand: more like poetry or literature than philosophy.  Some paragraphs were beyond my interpretation, like some of Dylan’s lyrics.   But I got the gist. 

 Thanks to my Philosophy 1 textbook, published in 1963, I could get a summary of the principle ideas advanced in this book, in the field of ethics.  

I agree with this summary: these are the propositions that sprang from the lyrics: 

1. Ideas which preserve life and add to a man’s power are more important than ideas sanctioned by logic or by seekers of absolute truth**
2. The metaphysical interest in the freedom of the will should give way to an interest in the strength of the will.
3. Men must turn conventional values upside down in order to live creatively; the established values of society** were invented by the weak to enable them to triumph over the strong.
4. Scientific minds are weak when they fail to pass judgment; whoever denies the will denies the power of life.
5. Progress in life is possible only if there are men of action who have the courage to trust will and instinct; new values arise which go beyond conventional good and evil** when the will to power asserts itself 

** being aware of Nietzsche’s contempt for Christianity, we can understand he’s referring to Christian values here.   We can extrapolate or juxtapose these values from the individual level to the international or geopolitical level, viz “international law was invented by the weak to enable them to triumph over the strong”.  Now that statement is indisputable.  

As  President Horta of tiny Timor Leste said in relation to the rise of China: “we are too small to have enemies and so rely on international law”

I had a flash of insight when absorbing the arguments of Nietzsche.  I could see that the “morality” to which Donald Trump referred was identical to that espoused in the book. 

No doubt Trump’s been coached by neocon intellectuals to give him this sense of justified  “alternative morality” that sees international law as invented by the weak to triumph against the strong (true).  

Description of audiobook (from Everand) 

Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, first published in 1886, presents a scathing critique of traditional morality and attacks previous philosophers for their blind acceptance of Christian ideals of virtue. As an alternative to what he viewed as the illogical and irrelevant philosophy of the nineteenth century, Nietzsche argues for the importance of imagination, self-assertion, danger, and originality for genuine philosophy. He furthermore denies the existence of a universal system of morality and instead offers a framework in which social roles and power dynamics dictate what is appropriate. A culmination of Nietzsche's mature philosophy, Beyond Good and Evil is a classic of moral thought and one of the foundations of existentialism. This edition is the translation by Helen Zimmern.

Following up on my application to Trump,  I put this question to the Chinese app DeepSeek:

Can you tell me what Donald Trump said about his actions being only limited by his own “morality” and not limited by international law or the US Constitution?  Can you put this type of thinking into the context of philosophical ideas in the field of ethics and metaphysics? 

Notes

1. The answer that came back did mention Nietzsche.  But all new ideas have their roots in earlier ideas.  Clearly Nietzsche was developing the ideas of earlier thinkers as outlined in by the Chinese data processing app.
2. Wikipedia entry on Thrasymachus (c. 459-400 BC) tends to downplay his “might is right” rhetoric as a provocation 

Answer from DeepSeek

(verbatim) 

President Trump has made several statements indicating he believes his actions are limited primarily by his own sense of morality rather than by international law or the U.S. Constitution. 

This perspective aligns with specific concepts in philosophical ethics, particularly those that reject universal rules in favor of personal conviction or raw power.

Here is a summary of his position and its philosophical parallels:

Philosophical Concept Core Idea 

Connection to Trump's Worldview 

Key Thinkers

Moral Subjectivism: Morality is based on individual feelings, not universal truths. "My own morality" is the only limit, rejecting external standards like international law.  David Hume (classic), Modern relativists, Ethical Egoism 

Actions are moral if they serve one's self-interest. Pursuing "what's good for our country" (national interest) justifies bypassing traditional constraints. Ayn Rand, Max Stirner

Thrasymachus's Immoralism: “Might makes right"; justice is the advantage of the stronger. The powerful (the U.S.) define rules; international law is a weak "nicety" compared to force . 

Thrasymachus (in Plato's Republic), Nietzsche (distorted)

Political Realism In international affairs, leaders act based on national interest and power, not morality: Foreign policy is guided by strength and interest, dismissing international law as a constraint . Hans Morgenthau, Thucydides

 Trump's Stated Position: "My Own Morality"

In early January 2026, President Trump gave a series of interviews where he outlined his view on the limits of presidential power.

Rejection of External Law: When asked about limits on his authority, Trump stated, "Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me". He explicitly added, "I don't need international law". 

Reliance on Personal Ethics: He elaborated on this in a separate interview, saying, "I'm a moral person. I don't like seeing death.  It's limited by my morality, and I have a very high grade of morality". 

Dismissal of Constitutional Restraints:  When asked if his power was limited by the Constitution or courts, he responded, "We'll never get to the courts. We'll never get to the Constitution, because I want to see what's good for our country". His deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, echoed this sentiment, dismissing international law as "legal niceties" and stating that the world is "governed by strength". 

Connecting the Statements to Philosophical Ideas

Trump's statements are not made in a vacuum. They reflect and echo several long-standing debates in ethics and political philosophy.

Moral Subjectivism:  At its core, the claim that "my own morality" is the ultimate standard is a form of moral subjectivism. This is the idea that moral judgments are statements about the feelings or attitudes of the speaker, not objective facts. While philosophers like David Hume argued that morality is rooted in human sentiment, modern subjectivism suggests there are no universal moral truths. Trump's assertion places his personal feelings above established legal and ethical codes that are meant to apply to everyone equally, regardless of individual sentiment .

Ethical Egoism: Trump's justification—that he acts based on what is "good for our country” - is a form of ethical egoism applied at a national level. This philosophy argues that an action is morally right if it advances one's own long-term self-interest. Here, the "self" is the nation. However, critics point out that in this case, the national interest is filtered entirely through the president's personal judgment, which can lead to conflict with international norms and treaties. 

Thrasymachus and "Might Makes Right": This is perhaps the most direct parallel. In Plato's Republic, the sophist Thrasymachus argues that justice is simply "the advantage of the stronger." The powerful define what is right, and the weak must comply. When Trump's adviser says the world is "governed by force"  and Trump acts on a belief that military and economic power trumps international law, it reflects this ancient idea. Experts quoted in the media have explicitly used the phrase "might makes right" to describe this doctrine . This worldview, sometimes associated with a crude interpretation of Nietzsche's "will to power," suggests that the strong are not bound by the moral codes designed to protect the weak.

Political Realism in International Relations: In the academic field of international relations, political realism posits that nation-states are primarily motivated by the pursuit of power and security, not by morality or ideals. Thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and Thucydides argued that leaders must act in their national interest in an anarchic world. Some analysts have noted that Trump's actions, such as the military operation in Venezuela, follow this historical pattern of the U.S. prioritizing its perceived strategic interests over the sovereignty of other nations.  However, what makes Trump's statements remarkable is his explicit and public rejection of the very framework of international law that was built after World War II to mitigate the harshest effects of this realist competition .

Contrast with Rule-of-Law Principles

It is important to note that Trump's worldview stands in stark contrast to the foundational principles of both the U.S. Constitution and the modern international order.

The Rule of Law: The U.S. Constitution is built on the principle of the rule of law, meaning that no one, not even the president, is above the law. As one legal commentator noted, the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances specifically to "prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch".  The president's oath is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," a promise to follow the law regardless of personal opinion. 

International Order: The system of international law, established through bodies like the United Nations, is designed to create a rules-based order where sovereignty is respected and aggression is prohibited. Experts warn that when major powers disregard these rules, it risks a "return to an era of imperialism" and emboldens other states to pursue aggressive policies, destabilizing global security .

In summary, Trump's claim that his actions are limited only by his "own morality" finds clear parallels in philosophical traditions like moral subjectivism, ethical egoism, and the "might makes right" argument. However, this position represents a significant departure from the rule-of-law principles that underpin both the U.S. Constitution and the modern international system.

I hope this analysis helps clarify the philosophical context of these statements. Would you be interested in exploring the real-world implications of this worldview, such as the reactions from other nations or international bodies?