For individuals and all humankind Nietzsche believes that we should not hold grudges, because it feeds into slave morality. Instead of blaming others, he believes people should change their mental frame, because we can create out own realities instead of letting the world get us down. He says that morality of pity has made Europeans ill (Nietzsche 19). Nietzsche rejects the idea of pity, along with morality based on virtue ... ... middle of paper ... ...e things are always going to be desired by man, which has created a black market in society. Ironically, throughout history those in power who develop many moral laws for society are ones who partake in the underground world of society’s forbidden fruits, which is what troubles Freud and many others.
Moral Theory and Personal Relationships In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments.
In his essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is an unsatisfactory moral theory because it is based upon an invalid argument, if cultural relativism were true, this would have some troubling and implausible consequences, and there are some moral rules common to all societies. In this short paper, I will argue that moral objectivism is a more satisfactory moral theory than ethical relativism. Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes,
Freud and Nietzsche’s thoughts may be similar, but human nature constantly changes. Freud is more aware, he examines into the past to find reasons that make life more civilized, however Nietzsche is more doubtful, he sees that humans should be led by a hero. Human nature as they both analysis is affected socially; it’s not a separable characteristic. It is knocked by achievements, failures, happiness, desire, pain, and pleasure and not followed as beliefs and traditions. Freud tends to show the inner struggle for the human in his analysis, but Nietzsche shows the outer struggle.
He thinks that linking the Old Testament with the New Testament is very cheeky. They are two different books with complete different ideas and so should not be linked together. The Old Testament is full of power - Nietzsche likes that. But he objects to the values of the New Testament that shouldn't be linked to the Old Testament. They demote power.
Kant argues that human reasoning is limited in its ability to provide an example of true morality. In his essay, he states that what humans perceive as good morals does not necessarily fit the conditions of what can be categorized as universal law of morality. Kant believes that people must hold morality not solely as an idea or set of exceptions but as an absolute idea (Kant 408). This absolute idea should be free of human rationalization in order to create a pure example. He believes this to be the case because within this form of rationalizing what is good from what is wrong there are often cases that stray away from true virtue such as human behavior.
In this paper, I will argue that Nietzsche’s view on punishment morally is skewed simply because I believe that a healthy moral individual would not be at rest while another human is being tortured. However, to a certain extent and in some specific situations, many would disagree with me. As for Foucault’s speculation on morality I will agree to certain extent as well. It is quite apparent Nietzsche wants to point out the irony pertaining to punishment. His perspective on punishment is that punishment –at least at some points in history, is a practice for the sake of to seeking retribution, revenge and ironically enough cheerfulness.
He believes that the “noble method of valuation” or master morality is preferable. Nietzsche dislikes slave morality because it comes about from hatred for others. Rather than seeing their own inferiority and working to remedy this in some way people hate others for their superiority. With the slave mentality there is a large notion of the afterlife and “the slave” is focused on this afterlife rather than the present. He dislikes that ressentiment makes people focus less on themselves and on self-improvement.
Kant also dislikes human nature, however, Kant unlike Machiavelli has hope that man can evolve from immaturity and become enlightened. Kant clearly displays his distrust for guardians as in Kant’s view they are suppressing the divine process of enlightenment.
He argued against “natural law” theory and thought that the classical theories of Plato and Aristotle as well as notions such as Kant’s Categorical Imperative were too outdated, confusing and/or controversial to be of much help with society’s ills and a program of social reform. He adopted what he took to be a simple and ‘scientific’ approach to the problems of law and morality and grounded his approach in the “Principle of Utility.” The Principle of Utility 1. Recognizes the fundamental role of Pain and Pleasure in human life. 2. Approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about (“consequences”).