Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Darwin are two influential thinkers who posited compelling arguments about morality. The two philosophers rejected the traditional Christian teachings, but their stance on morality differs considerably. However, the two differing opinions require a closer examination and analysis due to the complex but yet interesting nature of their arguments. Darwin offers a provocative analysis of the evolution of human morality and concludes that morals (especially empathy and sympathy), which comes from experiences, were critical to human development and survival. On the other hand, Nietzsche disagrees and literally deconstructs the accepted understanding of morality (slave morality) and deems it irrelevant. He proposes the idea of noble morality, which is doing as one desires, over slave morality, which is saying no to the self and practicing selfless love. Nietzsche finds it problematic because it makes humans weaker and prevents creativity from flourishing. Although both Darwin and Nietzsche raised pivotal points in regards to morality, there are a number of flaws in their arguments. Darwin’s view that morality stems from evolution is problematic because it means that one can alter their morals to suit their needs, and adopting Nietzsche’s belief of noble morality can be dangerous because doing as one pleases can not only endanger the said person but also society.
Unlike Nietzsche, Darwin does not discredit selflessness but instead embraces it. In the Descent of Man, Ch 4: Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals, Darwin states that “we are thus impelled to relieve the sufferings of another, in order that our own painful feelings may be at the same time relieved. In like manner we are led...
... middle of paper ...
.... For me, it is as simple as that and it is not a bad thing. Even as an altruistic person who has thousands of hours of volunteer work under her belt, I do it not only because I enjoy helping others and have the resources to do so, but also because it makes me feel like a better person. That’s selfishness in its self. As for Nietzsche, I do not understand his utter negation of slave morality. I do understand his position that slave morality can mask growth but it is not always a negative thing. I felt that Nietzsche depicted a one-sided image of slave morality, instead of finding the good qualities within and there are plenty. And the whole concept of noble morality seems too good to be true. I believe that people who adopt noble morality will have a difficult time “doing as they please” in today’s society because there are consequences for certain actions.
Nietzsche thought nobility was to see one’s self as the center and origin of value. He believed that people in power force common people into bidding their will, and those in charge are separated based on good or bad measures of their value. The rulers, or people in charge have master morality, the people who do their bidding have slave morality. Slave morality is how common people make their lives more bearable by using Christian ethics such as kindness and sympathy.
This piece of work will try to find the answer to the question ‘In Nietzsche’s first essay in the Genealogy of Morals, does he give a clear idea of what good and bad truly are and what his opinion of those ideas is’. It will give a brief overview of his first essay, it will also go into greater detail of what he claims good and bad truly are, and finally look at what he is trying to prove with this argument. It will look at his background in order to see if and how that has influenced his work and opinions.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a German philosopher, believed there are two different moralities; master and slave morality. For Nietzsche, a morality is a set of value judgements. These moralities define a person not only by their actions, but how they handle these certain situations throughout their daily life. I believe Nietzsche chose these two moralities as they are strong opposites that are rational. The distinction between "master morality" and "slave morality" are easy to be misunderstand.
To sacrifice oneself and save others is what we've known as human love, and we have also learned that we should respect those who could perform that in any situation, but in reality, the numbers of those people who don't care about what others do seems much greater than the number of those who do. In Stephen Crane's story, "The Monsters", Henry Johnson who sacrifices himself into the fire in order to save a little boy gets treated like a monster just because his face has "burned away"(84). This is very serious problem because it's not what happens only in the book, but also in our present lives.
Intention and action for the sake of others can only be one part of what makes a good person, one must also be in harmony with God’s will in order to attain grace. Jesus illustrates what such goodness looks like in his parable of giving to the poor, “ But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (Matthew, pg. 177). Reciprocity of action and intent for the sake of another is not in itself sufficient for goodness in Jesus’ eyes, according to him you must go beyond reciprocity and do things for their own sake in order to reach the favor of
Is human nature inherently selfless or selfish? Although a seemingly simple concept, the aforementioned question has long been a profoundly controversial topic. While many claim that humans are intrinsically compassionate and inclined to help those in need, others argue that people instinctively prioritize their own individual security over other people’s welfares. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s literary works, “Young Goodman Brown” and The Scarlett Letter, as well as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s renowned novel, The Great Gatsby, all reference the idea that people impulsively pursue perfection, as determined by their community’s values. While different communities establish different standards for perfection, society as whole romanticizes the idea of perfection and subsequently people strive to create the illusion of a perfect life. How an individual represents the values idealized by a given community determines his/her reputation in that community. Although people may appear to wholesomely follow the values idolized by their community, in reality, human nature is inherently flawed, making it impossible for people to achieve perfection.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
In Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, he discusses morality and divides this concept into two parts: “master morality” and “slave morality.” To briefly summarize, master morality, which was usually followed by the nobility, or ruling class, emphasized individuality and being strong willed – essentially promoting the creation one’s own set of values. In contrast, slave morality stemmed from oppression by, and resentment towards, the ruling classes onto the lower. The idea of “herd mentality” may be related to “slave morality.” Slave morality and being a part of the “herd” promote the idea of conforming humanity into calculable human beings, which in turn serve to oppress the masses.
...sophy. "Will to power" is a central philosophical principle for Nietzsche. For this reason I tried to interpret the answers of the questions on this basis. As I mentioned in the essay I related the invention of God with the will to power. Also the expressed value was also very related with this will to power. Also at that point value of revenge came into the picture. But there is no doubt that slave morality constructs a basis for the connection of revenge and the will to power. Finally, while trying to find answer for the rejection of all moral values, I'm puzzled with different alternatives that I interpreted according to my studies.
Ethical egoism is diametrically opposite to ethical altruism, which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if he sacrifices his own interest. Further, researchers justify and rationalize the mental position of egoism versus altruism through an explanation that altruism is destructive for a society, suppressing and denying an individual value. Although the ‘modern’ age unsubtly supports swaggering egoistic behavior in the competitive arena such as international politics, commerce, and sport, in other ‘traditional’ areas of the prideful selfishness showing off, to considerable extent discourages visible disobedience from the prevalent moral codes. In some cases, the open pro-egoist position, as was, per example, the ‘contextual’ interpretation of selfishness by famous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, can be described as a ‘grotesque anomaly’.
Where Kant’s system is based on a set of principles or duties, Nietzsche’s system is based on virtue. Nietzsche is critical of Christianity in general and its evaluation of morality. In the reevaluation of values, he shows how the characteristics of morality in Christianity are more prohibitive of living virtuously than those of Ancient Greece, which include strength, confidence, sexuality, and creativity. In Christianity, those values are pity, shame, asexuality, and humility. The set of values of Ancient Greece is considered Master Morality and the values of deontology is considered to be Slave Morality. Master morality is a step in the right direction for morality but still not the
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
It is a striking project; comprised of three essays- each with the aim of stripping the reader’s pre-conceptions of morality, and instead offering the reader an account of the true nature of morality. In this essay I will particularly focus upon the first essay of Nietzsche’s On The Genealogy of Morals that, through the use of metaphoric and dramatic language, cites ‘ressentiment’ as the catalyst of our modern day morals. I will primarily outline Nietzsche’s argument (with particular focus upon his metaphor of the workshop in section 12), secondly identify some internal inconsistencies in his argument (looking in particular at his slightly confusing portrayal of ‘masters’ and ‘slaves), and finally attempt to salvage Nietzsche’s argument through a re-evaluation of how to interpret his writing (appealing to Christopher Janaway’s interpretation of the Genealogy of Morals).
Nietzsche was a man who questioned the morality of his time. He dug deep in to what good really meant, and if there was a difference between bad and evil. He sought to look at the world by stepping back and looking at it with out the predisposition of what morality was/is. He looked at what he called slave and noble morality. He looked passed what was on the surface, and gave us many things to digest and discuss. In this paper I will discuss how Nietzsche’s writing can be seen as favoritism towards the noble morality by touching on how he believes the noble morality and slave morality came about, then I will talk about his “birds of prey and lambs” example which shows his fondness of the bird of prey, and I will end with my interpretation
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.