The Morality Of A Good Life

Satisfactory Essays
A good life worth living in my opinion requires serving and meeting the needs of others, as well as myself. We are expected to give unselfishly to our associates, friends, neighbors and family for good moral cause because it is purposeful in the end. What would we reap from merely relying on our sole actions and how would that selfishness benefit us as a whole in society? This is where Kant and Nietzsche disagree on the definition of what is considered a good life, what is considered moral and who has the worth to decide upon it.
I will begin with Kant, as he was the first to develop his theory of morality. Kant published the Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals in 1785. Kant’s entire hypothesis of morality revolved around the basis of us being motivated by the logic of obligation and having a moral duty to oblige and uphold as good beings. Kant believed that our moral actions were the result of reasoning and ones moral worth was dependent upon motive, not the end or the consequences resulting from ones actions. As rational beings we are expected to act and behave accordingly for the sake of the moral good, but with practical reason. This then results in universal morality according to Kant. This was all defined under Kant’s categorical imperative. These imperatives are things that one “ought” to do according to Kant. Kant believed that following ones duty was not measurable by the end means, yet it “is good only through its willing”. This meant that it is good only if it is good in itself. He believes under the categorical imperative, one must only act upon the maxim if it is willable under the universal law. And these maxims must be contradiction free and purposeful to be considered moral.
Kant believed that we as hum...

... middle of paper ...

... feel beneath you to uplift ones self. If one was born into the noble they were sanctioned a virtuous good life, the ignoble were condemned from the beginning based purely by the division of labels and the power of words.
Nietzsche believed that we should have the ability, the freedom to make our own choices socially. He felt that all individuals should be free to form their own moral compass system. He was clearly against religion and the fear mongrel mentality to control ones choices and dictation over what was deemed moral. He was asking for a radical change, for us to reconstruct how we define morality. But that said, Nietzsche himself failed to offer an explicit alternative to Kant’s theory of morality. Nietzsche offered nothing more than a contentious critique over Kant’s almost 100-year-old system that theoretically and realistically worked.
Get Access