Ethnic and morality - Essay Example

Friedrich Nietzsche had a personal belief that morality is anti-nature. In fact, Nietzsche states that, “Every naturalism in morality-that is every health morality-is dominated by an instinct of life” (349). Indeed, Nietzsche helps us to define the idea of anti-nature by asserting that a human being is seemingly refuting the reality by denying their personal passion. In fact, according to Nietzsche and his moral philosophy, the healthiest moralities accommodate natural aspects while the unhealthy moralities negate nature.

Nature derives human desires, which consequently define individual personality and how human beings behave. As such, I hold this fact and strongly oppose Nietzsche’s notion that morality is anti-nature. Friedrich Nietzsche observes that human beings should have the free will to choose what they want without coercion from any external forces. He further quotes that, “Anti-natural molarity-that is almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached-turns conversely against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts” (349).

He also disputed the common notion that religions like Christianity drive human life and consequently asserted that religion and dominance of morality inhibits human nature. In this context, Nietzsche argued that ardent followers of a certain religion ignore the nature of humanity since religion forces individuals to behave in a manner that will please the supreme ruler of the reference religion. Friedrich Nietzsche holds that religion especially Christianity opposes human nature because it gives a leeway to individuals to adopt religious doctrines about human life hence limiting individuals from celebrating nature.

Indeed, Nietzsche states that the most general foundation of every religion and morality is, “Do this and that, refrain from this and that,-then you will be happy” (352)! He uses this explanation to support the concept of anti-nature in morality. Notably, Nietzsche refers to morality as anti-nature by asserting that human desires control what individuals do, do not do, and confirms that morality distracts the course of nature. Nevertheless, various philosophers identify with the fact that nature generates human desires that consequently define human personality and morality.

For instance, Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy and other philosophers like Locke and Hobbes argues that moral requirements rely on a standard of rationality which is either based on desire instrumental principles of rationality or on rational intuition. This contradicts with Nietzsche’s assumption that human nature is prone to alteration by both morality and religion. Most specifically, I note that Nietzsche depicts religious people like Christians as hypocrites who can do anything to please God at the expense of altering their human nature.

Ideally, Christians are rational beings who do not have such morality. Indeed, very few Christians would identify with Nietzsche’s argument since his ideas discourage Christians from following their religion. Notably, Nietzsche’s argument that religion alters human nature by allowing Christians to adopt variant aspects of life that prevent them from celebrating life is misguided. This is because Christians have morals that allow then to enjoy their lives just like any other person. In fact, his argument is not universal since it only addresses Christians thus leaving a significant would population.

Assuredly, Nietzsche discourages people from