Nietzsche Moral Philosophy - Report Example

Nietzsche Moral philosophy Friedrich Nietzsche was a self-described immoralist who advocated for high and severe morality. In spite of his denunciations of traditional morality, he was no libertine or hedonist. Nietzsche’s moral philosophy is first and foremost critical in orientation. He looked at morality as a commitment to metaphysical and empirical claims about human agency. He also looked at the impact of morality on the norms and values of human beings that became considered higher than others. His ethical views were a combination of the implicit theory of good and an understanding of human perfection. Nietzsche aims at freeing human beings from their false consciousness about the issue of morality. He wants to free people from the idea that morality is good for them and not for the society (Richardson 20). Nietzsche forms an argument that free from the moral prejudices that he believes clouds the metaphysical pursuit and inquiries of science. Nietzsche concept of slave and master morality Master and slave morality is a key theme of the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche presented that there are two types of morality. These include master and slave morality. Master morality majorly deals with the good or bad consequences of actions. Master morality values strength, pride and nobility. Master morality gets described by Nietzsche as the morality of the strong- willed. Slave morality deals with the good or bad intentions that people have. For Nietzsche slave morality values things like sympathy, kindness and humility. Nietzsche argued that we must not presume that anything that is good is helpful, and all that is bad is harmful. He argued that this presumption got based on the grounds of habitualness. Value or non-value should not be derived from its consequences (Richardson 24). The strong-willed men in Nietzsche view look at something good as powerful and noble and what is bad as petty, weak, and cowardly. Nietzsche forwarded that morality deals with the individual. We must recognize that oneself is the measure of all things. Masters become creators of morality while the slaves simply respond to the masters with their slave morality. Slave morality originates in the weak while master morality originates in the strong. He argued that the strong people are few among the weak. The weak work hard to gain power by eroding the strong to believe in the causes of slavery which is evil. For example by stating that humility is good and voluntary, the slave morality lives in denial that humility got forced upon them by a master. Moral Skepticism Nietzsche was a moral skeptic. He questions the authenticity of the explanations of morality which get purported to be factual. He maintains a doubting attitude towards the values and character of others which get considered moral. Nietzsche calls attention to the fact that the history of moral theories does not have a rational explanation for the foundational proposition about morality. Nietzsche supports the notion that there are no moral facts or truths. Nietzsche questions what brings about morality (Richardson 56). We do not know whether it is the criterion of the action or the reason for its performance that gets considered right. We must also consider the consequences that these actions bring about. Nietzsche also locates disagreement among the most sophisticated and moral philosophies which makes him a moral skeptic. Nietzsche was an aristocratic radicalism. This was a condemnation of hyper-aesthetic writing and fantasy in literature. It was a belief that literature should be based upon extensive thoughts of liberty and the progress of humanity. Moral Nihilist Moral nihilism is the view that nothing is intrinsically immoral or moral. Moral nihilists consider morality as something that gets constructed through a set of rules and recommendations. Nietzsche is not a moral nihilist. He states nihilism as absolute valuelessness, or that nothing has a meaning. He explained that this was extremely dangerous because it is through valuing things in life that people endure pain, danger and the hardships they come along in life. It is a means of survival. He was not for emptying the world of complete meaning, understandable truth and essential value. His argument got based on the fact that comprehending reality of the world was crucial not conception of the idea that everything was meaningless. Nietzsche’s argument that God is dead Nietzsche did not like metaphysical speculations that many people had about the universe, humanity and abstract or vague concepts like “God”. As far as Nietzsche was concerned, the concept of “God” was not necessary. Amazingly, religion and the belief in other gods were majorly vital, and he certainly had much to say about them. He stated that, believing that God was alive was living among the dead. This also applied to believing in religions such as Christianity. His argument was that such beliefs turn us away from the truth and the life. They make the life we have now valueless which was a form of moral nihilism. This is because the belief in God robbed this world of its importance and meaning. For Nietzsche, the truth and life exist in the world right here where we all live. It was not an illusion of heaven that we were not sure of. Nietzsche termed belief in God as slave mentality (Richardson 84). He took a position that in order to end this chain of slavery, he had to “kill” God. This was so that we could overcome conformity and fear. This was on condition that we did not find another master who again turned us into slaves. He thought that by “killing” God, we would then become over men which was a description of master morality. Nietzsche was not right to say that God was dead. This is because if he were dead, all the moral values that Christianity brought with it would also be dead. This would then be a form of nihilism on his part something that he hoped to escape. It would mean that all that Christians believed in was valueless. Stand on Nietzsche’s argument The moral law that Nietzsche proposed was not true. Morality does not come from within the individual completely. If this were true, then how could we be able to look at the actions of others and call on them good or bad? People such as Hitler were evil and immoral, and many agree with this fact. This means that there are some outside universal factors that define morality. It does not depend entirely on the individual’s discretion as proposed by Nietzsche. The laws of morality also do not come from one society. Different societies most of the time share the same moral code. This is what enables one society to be able to call the actions of another society. To be able to form acceptable moral codes, we should appeal to the world or societal consensus on what needs to be the ultimate source of morality. For this to be possible, there must be a moral law above all men that stands above all societies and world consensus. Nietzsche made sure that, in his argument he did away with this higher order. According to many this equates to God. These are flaws within his argument because if God remains in existence for him, then his theory becomes null and void. Morality should be eternal and should not change. If we are to follow Nietzsche’s argument where morality varies from one individual to another, then this will not be true. This means that what is moral today may not be moral tomorrow. This leads us to question his theory because morality should be similar from past generations to the present. If the killing was wrong in the past, it should not be right now simply because everyone is free to decide what is wrong or right. Absolute morality leads directly to belief in God. This gets believed to be the moral law giver. The perspective of the Christian ethics holds absolute moral values and laws that bind the whole universe. Nietzsche believed that right for one individual did not necessarily mean right for the other people. He argued that everyone should be left to decide for themselves what was right for them (Richardson 56). This can lead to total disaster in the world. This is because if I feel that killing my neighbor is right, then I should go ahead and kill them because this is morally right in my book of morals. Nietzsche believed that a group of stronger men should develop values and rise above the others. He was not for values like brotherly love, charity and turning the other cheek. What he viewed as morality was oppression of the weak. He believed in “hard” values that defined strength and courage. We witness in history that many Nazi’s referred to his argument as a form of justification for their acts of cruelty during the Hitler regime. Hitler’s acts were wrong, and it became universally agreed that these acts were not moral. Nietzsche provides them with an argument that befits their actions. In his opinion morality was subjective to one’s opinion and feelings. When one says that killing someone is wrong, it is because they feel that murder is wrong. It is not because it is a wrong action and denies the other person a right to life. His moral philosophy permits any and all action especially those that express power. His point of view leads us to believe that he would condone almost everything both good and bad. Many tyrants got encouraged to use his philosophy, and it was difficult for him to condemn this men based on what he was arguing for. We can imagine people who commit arson, rape, murder, and torture being at peace with themselves as though they have done nothing wrong. Nietzsche constantly implied that submission to one’s instincts was a noble thing to do because he believed it was an affirmation of life. For example, a criminal could be rebelling against the law or the state as a form of fulfilling his instincts. Does it mean that if a criminal rapes a woman they should not be punished because the action is an affirmation of life? Nietzsche stated that the races of those that were cruel and murderous were noble conquerors. He also called their norms master or noble morality. This is neither morality nor nobility. It was a crime, and it gave the criminals in society a leeway to continue doing evil against others. Nietzsche was not a supporter of democracy. He treasured power and placed much emphasis on it. His view was that everyone should seek power; no one should let another person be more powerful than them. It must be the only goal. This view was a look of a warrior society. This is because not everyone can have power in the society. The search for power also led to a lot of greed which culminated to evil in the society. If everyone wants to be on top, then it means that everyone will fight for the position despite the costs. He put good and evil above right and wrong. Meaning evil could be wrong, but it was above right and wrong and it did not matter. His thoughts were that anything that was powerful was good (Richardson 203). For instance wealth and military that meant power was automatically good, and it did not matter what someone used this wealth and power for. The thinking in Nietzsche’s moral philosophy is immensely flawed. He did not base his arguments from both sides of the coin. He was exceedingly egocentric in his assumptions. He did not take his time to look at the society deeply before drawing his conclusions on morality. Works Cited Richardson, John. Nietzsche. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Read More