Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the relationship between religion and morality
friedrich nietzsche slave morality
what is nietzsche mean by slave morality and master their origins and characteristics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the relationship between religion and morality
In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c...
... middle of paper ...
...y. While understanding that Master Morality and Slave Morality are just the basis of what makes up all Morals and just as though our values where made of interchangeable parts we mix and match what feels right and what works for us as individuals. These basic morals that we tend to identify with will dictate how we align ourselves politically, socially, and religiously; because there is not a true ruling class or ruled class it is difficult to see the blurred lines that separate us morally. This is a product of our Democratic government that ensures our freedoms to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but in turn does allow there to be such a dramatic difference between the wealthiest and the poorest of people. The system is not perfect but what makes it wonderful is the ability to adapt and change with the times and to improve itself for the benefit of all.
Morals are set standards of right and wrong for society as a whole. One ’s self image of morals are what the individual thinks is right and wrong according to what he or she learns; however, this “Internal compass” can be influenced because society controls most of what they learn. One’s self image of morals allows an individual to provide compelling arguments, provides emotional stability and allows for an individual to have predetermined views of right and wrong; on account of the fact that said individuals choose to follow the revolutionary figures who provide a strong base for the creation of one’s self image of morals. In most cases, religion plays a major role in the creation of this aspect of identity; made evident in Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in which, through use of historical and religious examples, Dr. King justifies his participation in a non-violent protest to expedite the process of integration. Also, “Young Goodman Brown” by Nathaniel Hawthorne shows how an individual’s self image of morals provide a strong emotional base and an unwavering sense of right and wrong. Even my own experiences have led me to believe that having a strong self image of morals allows an individual to be emotionally stable, and have a strong sense of right and wrong.
Nietzsche's master-slave morality describes the way in which moral norms shifted through the through eras, from pre-scocratic times to the modern age founded upon Christian and Jewish beliefs. During pre-socratic times, value was dominated and enacted by the master class, who saw themselves and what they did as good. Value was defined along their terms of good- what was good for the master class was itself good. This notion of value was designed along the lines of nobility and purity, which included traits such as courage, beauty, strong-will and happiness. The master-class said yes to existence, and their values affirmed their belief system, which, due to their position of control, created their disposition as elite and influenced the norms for morality at their time. Since the master-class viewed themselves as good, they distinguished themselves from the weaker individuals, those not in power, as bad. The weaker individuals, in pre-socratic times known as plebeians, according to the master-class, were weaker for various reasons. Be it due to their unhappiness, victimization to unfortunate circumstances, weak-will or a lack of courage, pride, or a combination of any of these despicable or non virtuous values. According to the master-class, adherence to these weak values initiated a form of fear within the plebeian, which created a lack of self worth and a lack of freedom or self-consciousness, deemed as slavery.
In Western society and culture, religion and morality have often intertwined and they have reflected their values onto each other. Today it is sometimes impossible to make a distinction between the two, since their influence has transcended generations. In modern Western culture, religion and society preach conformity. In order to be a “good” person, one must conform to the values imposed by the church1 and state.
I also think that the difference between the two types of moralities mentioned in the text book by Nietzsche are that the master morality makes its personal values and stands beyond good and evil, whereas, slave morality values kind-heartedness, meekness, and compassion. The master exceeds the weakness of the ordinary individual. Dylan, I do agree with you that in the long time you find yourself with more master morality and some slave molarity as well. As for me I would say I am a mixture of the two because under slave morality I hold to the standard that are advantageous to the feeble or powerless and under master morality I create my own values out of strength. On the other hand, Co-occurrence of the two moralities is not possible because
Jonathan Haidt explores this ideas in his recent book, The Righteous Mind, and documents the differences between the moral code between liberals and conservatives. He discovers that significant differences in the moral codes in conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. (Conservatives value all six of his morality pillars (authority, care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, sanctity): liberals value care, fairness, and liberty, and libertarians value mostly liberty). The dissimilar perspectives lead to dissimilar value judgments over similar things, which in turn creates beliefs that the other side is “evil,” “immoral,” or “perverted.” To add to this issue, religiosity has decreased over the recent decades. Before, the country bounded around a Christian (and mostly Protestant in many areas) identity. In today’s more secular US, this progression augments the differences between political
“The sanctity of the oath” (Keillor 102), the controversial hot topic of this year. This is a subject that has sparked great debates not only to those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Some hold the oath as a promise of civility and humanity. On the other hand, others view the morality the oath is supposed to stand for as unreachable and unattainable. In my opinion Garrison Keillor sums it up in his essay, “The Republicans Were Right, But.” I feel this is a good essay based upon the author’s argument of morality, his use of symbolism, and the entire structure of the essay.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
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.
Morality can be described as standards of the ideal man, or a law striving for perfection in humans (Spencer, H 1892). Francesca Gino and Cassie Mogilner in their 2013 experiment tested and proved a theory that priming money and time will cause differences in moral attitude. Looking further into this experiment it could be argued that it was not time or money in itself that caused a change in moral behavior, but time and money subconsciously caused a change in self-reflection which influenced ethical behavior. Thus Gino and Mogilner (2013) effectively proved a link between an indirect, yet consistent, link between time, money and morality. By use of imagination it can be deduced that this information could be beneficial in manipulating or even exposing ethical and moral behavior in society, including the possibility of increasing self-awareness to extract ideal behaviours in civilisation.
The concepts of Morality and Immorality are discussed in many different ways. Glaucon, brother to Plato and Adeimantus, and apprentice to Socrates, takes a unique approach to showing the implications of both notions. Glaucon does this through his three-step argument that challenges Socrates by evaluating the benefits of being an immoral person versus one holding onto their morality. Glaucon’s argument dives into three segments, which leads to Glaucon’s conclusion that immorality is more beneficial than morality.
The Will of Power by Friedrich Nietzsche, in which Nietzsche stated, “Christian morality is slave morality.” which refers to the way that Nietzsche compared Christian morality and slave morality which referred to the utility system of morality. In this essay, I will be explaining the actual intent argument that Nietzsche was making, as well as comparing how the master and slave morality compared to Nietzsche’s Ubermensch theory as well.
I strongly believe that some acts are morally right and others morally wrong. Though in society today I find many different people with many different opinions on this some issues. The way someone was raised or the experiences they have faced could be what has molded these beliefs. The differences between right and wrong are not always the same in each person's head and this is where we face controversy. Morals differ from person to person resulting in confrontations dealing with morality issues. Such as euthanasia, human beings should not have to suffer, just as we do not allow animals to suffer. I believe Pro-Choice is morally right. Woman should be given the choice of whether or not she can terminate her pregnancy. On the flip side, I feel cheating is morally wrong, and puts people at an unfair advantage.
Morality refers to the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Morality exists in times of adversity and injustice due to with a positive attitude; we can truly see the good in times of adversity. This paper will clearly discuss themes of injustice, activism and adversity by establishing how African Americans and Indigenous Australians have faced injustice and ways they lived out the rules of living.
Morality is defined to be the standards of a human behavior and principles that always give a meaning to life and is a must. Today’s youth have shown a massive degradation in the moral values in the modern society. A large number of today’s youth seem to believe that having moral standards is outdated and unfashionable. Several minds are now subtitled with hypocrisy, lust, hatred and so on, which has resulted in a degeneration that arose from the lack of parental influence, open-minded media and peer pressure. Those causes are the main reason of the sorry state of morality between the youth nowadays.
I used to think that religion made people good and that they were so moral because they were always following God commands, especially the bible and the Ten Commandments that basically says what is right and what it is wrong, what to do and what not to do. Even though I have never been a big religious person myself, I saw as something normal the idea that following the commands can make you a good person. But then I realize that I never took the time to think more deeply about the topic. I have some questions and even though I am sure they have already been answered, I am going to try to answer them. Could someone be a person moral with not religion? Knowing the answer of this question whether it is yes, or no, would lead to other questions like: the relationship between religion and ethics? And last but surely not least. Does religion provide a good foundation for making decisions in biomedical ethics?