The Controtorical Analysis Of Nietzsche's Moral Nihilism

In philosophy “Nihilism” is a position of radical skepticism. It is the belief that all values are baseless and nothing is known. The word “Nihilism” itself conveys a sense of abolishing or destroying (IEP). Nietzsche’s work and writings are mostly associated with nihilism in general, and moral nihilism especially. Moral nihilism questions the reality and the foundation of moral values. Nietzsche supported his view on morality by many arguments and discussions on the true nature of our inner self. Through my paper on Moral Nihilism, I will explain 5 major arguments and then try to construct a deductive argument for each, relying on Nietzsche’s book II “Daybreak”. Firstly, I will present the argument about drives.

Nietzsche sees human

These different understandings occur when we experience or sense something. As an example, if you see someone eating very fast, one could interpret that this guy is in a hurry, other can think that his food is very delicious and he just loves it, other person could say that he has no manners or he is unclean. A valid question to ask here; why there is so many different interpretations for a single action? Well, for Nietzsche (119), the drive that dominates during a specific duration is what determines our interpretation. Nietzsche doesn’t differentiate the interpretation we have either at day or night, but rather he sees that there is a more free ground in your dreams for that you can interpret stimulus that might not be interpreted in the day, as an example sometimes you dream that you can fly or jump between mountains or you dream of monsters chasing you, however in day life these things cannot be understood as they will not

At first we see “what is in it for us”. After that, we “take this effect as the intention”. At last, we “ascribe the harboring of such intentions as a permanent quality of the person whose behavior we are observing”. Following from these steps is how we can determine whether a person is harmful, beneficial or kind (102). Nietzsche claims that our judgment is always based on how the actions of the other relate to me “What harms me is something evil (harmful in itself); what is useful to me is something good (102).” From here, Nietzsche refuses the idea that we are able to morally judge the other. Nietzsche then questions that if we assess the right actions relatively then “we ourselves must constitute the principle of the good (102).” But how can we constitute the principle of good if we are ignorant about our actions, our ego, and our neighbor. The truth is that we are deceiving ourselves and we are shaping this principle of good in a manner that suits us. From here, our principle of good is conditional, and we don’t constitute the “principle of