In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses how he is not a believer in democracy. The principles of democracy were put together by levelers, or people that believe in democracy. These principles lead to equality that restrains life to one universal truth and Nietzsche did not agree with this idea at all. He believed that these principles caused people to form into one large herd. In this herd, people follow one another with no will to power, which results in the downfall of individual rights and instincts. This makes the herd the definition of morality in society, which Nietzsche disagrees with. But he brings up the idea of neighbor love. Neighbor love is the idea that we are all in one herd so we are all equal which creates us to all love our neighbor equally. This contradicts Nietzsche’s ideas that humans should be competitive and pursue their own interests, and not follow a herd because in reality, not everyone is equal or the same. Neighbor love is simply giving up the will to power over your neighbor and competition is no longer involved in society because of equality. The democratic principles are what all of these ideas are based off of.
Nietzsche has multiple problems with democracy. First of all, he believes in the pre-moral period. A monarchy, to him, is the best system that could be in place. It may not be equal, but someone has to have the will to power to run a successful society. Nietzsche states that with success, pain and struggle is necessary. Democracy creates sublimation to everyone because no individual is better than another. The idea of democracy is a negative side of equality in which people still “love truth” (40), but not the absolute truths because people are leveling off their knowledge and not iden...
... middle of paper ...
... of democracy and enforcing it. This is weakening societies individual abilities and will to power because the weaker society wants to impose what they believe to be as morality. The concept of the herd is simply the bringing the potential of an individual down to what society believes as right and wrong. Love of thy neighbor comes into play with the heard because everyone is equal; therefore, love is the only option. But this is false because it is not true love. The levelers are ignoring the historical perspective of morality and instead they justify their own morality with a narrow mind, ignorant to the days when society was run by will to power and success of the individual. Our own knowledge is what we make of it and if we are constricted by society we are making ourselves less intelligent and less successful.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
The problem of evil is a big topic in today’s society and will continue to be for forever. The problem is that so many bad things happen in the world that Gods existence is debatable and if he is real, it is questionable that he is as powerful as the bible portrays him to be. In this case, we ask the question, how can such a good and powerful God not prevent evil in the world? The argument at hand is that if a perfect God exists, there would be no evil in the world and since evil exists, there is no God. In this paper, I will examine both sides to the problem. I will discuss views on why God is in existence and allows evil, as well as views on why God is not in existence based on the fact that there is evil in the world. After that I will take my stance on the issue and justify why I think that way.
"The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces"~Philip Zimbardo. It is hard to not cross the line between good and evil because if someone is getting you mad, you might want to harm them in some way. But you have keep your cool and let it go. Being good or evil is your own choice. Even if you are good, you always have an evil side. This quote fits perfectly because it talks about how evil is really only in people under certain situations. People are essentially good, but under certain circumstances, turn evil.
The article I picked to show the evil in the world today was about a man named Abner Louima. This man was arrested in 1997 and is suing the state of New York for being beaten in a restroom in the station while being questioned. The sole witness Conelle Lugg, 19, he heard loud screaming and banging noises against the wall of the bathroom while he was in his cell, he then saw a police officer push Louima into a cell pants down and blood rushing out of his open wounds. The officer then proceeded to tell Louima to get on his knees. After all this Lugg said, that Louima fell to the floor and screamed in pain and begged to be taken to a hospital.
“The third rope was still moving; being so light, the child was still alive… For more than half an hour he stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony under our eyes… Behind me, I heard the same man asking; ‘Where is God now?’ And I heard a voice within me answer him: ‘Where is He? Here He is-He is hanging here on this gallows.’” (Wiesel, 1982) What possible good could have come out of this child being executed? He committed no recognizable crime. How could an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good God allow such a thing to happen? Philosophers and theologians have struggled with this question for centuries. It is known as the problem of evil, as the existence of evil and the classical theistic concept of God appear to be logical incompatibilities. Many philosophers have devised theodicies or justifications of evil; however; J. L. Mackie proposed that the only plausible explanation is not that evil is justifiable but rather that the problem lies in the traditional concept of God.
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.
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
“…And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (Matthew 6:9-13) As it says in the Bible, we wish to be led astray from evil. However, evil is a very curious subject. For most intensive purposes, evil can be described as cruel, heinous, and unnecessary punishment. Evil is a relatively accepted concept in the world today, although it is not completely understood. Evil is supposedly all around us, and at all times. It is more often than not associated with a figure we deem Satan. Satan is said to be a fallen angel, at one point God’s favorite. Supposedly Satan tries to spite God by influencing our choices, and therefore our lives. However, this presents a problem: The Problem of Evil. This argues against the existence of God. Can God and evil coexist?
In the chapter titled Rebellion (or his book title), Feodor Dostoevski’s character, Ivan Karamazov, demonstrates that his angry and resentful attitude is the by-product of his very choosing. The fundamental principal of our own humanity is God’s acknowledgment of our expression of free will. Found between the boundaries of man’s ownership of worldly acts and thoughts, which can lead him to an eternity of joy or damnation, is that critical choice of what attitude we will wrap ourselves in for our finite time here. The extreme, and perhaps somewhat all too common, result of this human choice between simple joy and compounding suffering is presented in Ivan. As highlighted in Genesis account of Gods’ pure joy and pleasure of man, and His authoritative command for man’s dominion over all of His creations, it is impossible to imagine our Creator desiring our willing choice for suffering.
My claim that we have evil in this world because of our libertarian freedom does not fully answer the notion of “the problem of evil”. Saying we have evil in this world is just like saying we have bad decisions in this world. Bad decisions just like evil do not have a form. Every decision that God makes is a good decision therefore God cannot do evil. Human beings initiated evil. In fact, the first human beings (Adam and Eve) gave ongoing birth to evil because everyone ultimately came from them. So everyone after Adam and Eve is inherently evil. This idea is evident in our lives because every human being has committed evil. The ultimate problem is not how an all-powerful God can exist while evil exist, the ultimate dilemma is how a holy God can accept human beings that are not holy. Stephen T. Davis in “Free Will and Evil” writes, “All the moral evil that exists in the world is due to the choices of free moral agents whom God created” (Davis). Davis argues that free will is the answer to the problem of evil. This is consistent with my view that evil exists because of our libertarian freedom. Unlike Hick, Davis is consistent with my answer for evil and he is also consistent with how evil is solved in regards to heaven and hell. Davis states, “I do believe hell exists, but I do not hold that it is a place where protesting people are led against their will to be tortured vengefully. I believe that the people who will end up separated from God freely choose hell and would be unhappy in God’s presence. Having lived their lives apart from God, they will choose eternally—to go on doing so. So it is not a bad thing that they do not spend eternity in the presence of God. People who will prove to be incorrigibly evil will never come to th...
According to a recent study conducted by the FBI, in the US, it is estimated that there has
The argument as to whether humans are born good or evil is one that been philosophized for hundreds of years by many of the world’s greatest minds. Are humans born with a particular set of qualities that define their character and how they are perceived in society? Are they born with the power to choose between good and evil? The idea of human nature relies on the theory that there is an engrained set of features which are shared by all humans—components that determine the way people reason and behave. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two opposing philosophers who have devoted many years to studying this subject. For Locke, the state of nature— the original condition of all humanity before civilization and order were established —is one where man is born free, equal and have rights that others should respect, such as the right to live and the right to liberty. These rights were essentially derived from natural law— an unwritten law in which every man must judge his/her own actions against. For Hobbes, however, the state of nature is one of constant war; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ; it is, in Hobbes’ mind, civilization that separates humans from their primitive state. Hobbes believed that an individual’s only drive in life is to serve themselves above all else. In order to obtain this goal, humans must use conflict as a means of self-gain to take what they desire for their self-serving nature. Although Hobbes’ theory on human nature is…..…John Locke provides one of the best in depth accounts of true human nature, as he suggests that man is not born with any pre-conceived ideals, apart from being born free. Locke theorised that man was born with a clean slate, thus, they have the ability to make decisions that are e...
Before that can be established, I think a definition of democracy should be stated so that it may be called upon later in this essay. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, democracy is stated as "the principle of social equality and respect for the individual within a community" .
In Both Grendel and Beowulf, there is conflict. The conflict is betwixt the themes of light and dark, Paganism vs. Christianity, and Man vs. Beast. Grendel, the main character in Grendel and the secondary character in Beowulf, faces external battles but the most important battle take place internally. John Gardener recognized the basis for Grendel’s predicament which is “his [Grendel] stubborn cling to skepticism and cold, hard reason. . .” (Grendel’s Geis). Though there are many different themes present in both stories, there is one theme that remains consistent throughout out both. This theme is the lack of acceptance. Grendel’s in-acceptance is rooted in his lack of understanding of the world and its functions. As a result of the many things that have taken place in Grendel’s life, he is perceived as evil yet, not because he wants to be. He is misunderstood and not accepted. Much of Grendel’s evil wrongdoing comes as a result of lack of acceptance, lack of communication, and his ignorance.
Karma comes in two ways, good karma or bad karma. However Miss Strangeworth got the worst kind ever, revenge karma. In the short story, The Possibility of Evil by Shirley Jackson, it is clear that judging others can result to bad karma, because she judges her town, and consequences return the favor. She is shallow and has too much power, however it starts with judgement. The Possibility of Evil takes us through a journey of a selfish woman and her consequences.
Democracy is control by the people. On the surface, this appears to be a superior form, but as Plato warned it is slow to react, oppresses of the minority, and lacks skilled leaders (Perry,