more consideration for Nietzsche

In his section on altruism, it is almost clear to me that Adams is mainly a “goodie two shoes” in a way. He seems to think altruism is good because of the obvious reasons: being unselfish is nice, helping others is good, selflessness betters the community, etc. And for the most part he rejects the sort of “bad boy,” pessimistic ideas of Nietzsche. He even states that he feels revulsion at the thought of Nietzsche celebrating cruelty (Adams 73). I see this as sort of a grade school notion of ethics and virtue. In grade school, a teacher posts up a set of classroom rules that everyone should abide by and they are usually cliché things such as treat others the way you want to be treated, share your toys, no roughhousing and so on. He really doesn’t want to seriously question or reject basic and obvious notions of goodness that kids are generally brought up raising. I for one am a fan of Nietzsche’s negativity when it comes to aspects of humanity’s base morality. I like finding examples when cruelty should be celebrated and think those examples tell us something very important about the nature of human beings. But in all fairness, Adams does a better job in this chapter than in previous chapters about explaining his reasons for what is good and part of the excellent. He clearly lays out arguments and doesn’t really assume a whole lot. Also he acknowledges the possibility of times when pure altruism doesn’t work out for the best in the end. So I’m not attacking any Adam’s thought processes, but instead would just like him to show a little more consideration for the existence and importance of the opposite position.