The Moral Responsibility of Individuals - Essay Example

Analysis of Nietzsche scepticism about Christian love Nietzsche was one of the greatest philosophical thinkers to have come into being in Europe, and came up with many philosophies concerning diverse topics and subjects. Among these was his criticism of how Christianity as a religion had developed and how this religion treated the concept of love. The stance that he takes concerning Christian love is a reflection of the way life in the nineteenth century was, whereby people across Europe had stopped putting religion at the centre of their lives and instead worked towards developing themselves at a personal level. Despite being the son of a Lutheran minister, Nietzsche was a man who did not subscribe to the ideas of Christianity, especially those that dealt with love, believing that the concept of love had been completely corrupted by the church. However, he was also a great admirer of Jesus because of the manner in which he had lived his life and attempted to reform the religion of Judaism so that it could become more progressive. While this was the case, Nietzsche criticized the teaching of love in the Gospels stating that they did not hold any truth in the reality of many individuals. It was his belief that those individuals who practiced Christianity did not live their lives to the fullest because they subscribed to teachings of Gospels, which were aimed at ensuring that life was composed of absolutes. According to Nietzsche, life was not full of absolutes and the concept of love could therefore not be practiced as preached in Christianity because to do so would mean that individuals could no longer make decisions for themselves; hence remain in the fossilized hierarchy to which the church had relegated them. According to Nietzsche, because Jesus died on the cross, the concept of love died with him and this is the reason why there no longer needs to be any form of absolutes in the manner in which individuals profess love towards each other. According to him, the Christian manner of love as practiced was highly hypocritical because instead of making people happy, it made them slaves of their own actions (Hollingdale, 1999, p.21). This declaration by Nietzsche does not hold any truth because Christian teachings relating to love enabled the church to grow in strength and have continued to sustain it in the modern world despite the rapid secularization currently taking place. There have been points of view though criticized by Nietzsche that Christian teachings on love are among the elements that have ensured a continued growth in provision of charity and aid for those places hard hit with drought and famine across the globe. Without the Christian capacity for love, there would be no basis upon which individuals in the society would be able to help one another since each would only put into consideration looking out for their own interests. Consequently, Nietzsche is wrong to have stated that the concept of Christian love died with Jesus on the cross because it still thrives to this day, affecting the lives of millions if not billions. Nietzsche’s proclamation that Jesus died on the cross is a direct reference to the belief that God is dead. This creates a moral dilemma for Christians on whether it is justified to continue following the teachings of Jesus as espoused by the church or to make their own way (Belliotti, 2013, p.195). Nietzsche makes the point that since Christianity is a religion based on love, it is essential that all the people who subscribe to it treat each other equally so that there is no priestly hierarchy in place to tell others what to and not to do. It is possible that since individuals wish to understand the meaning of life and the reason why they have to undergo suffering in their lives, many have come to believe in the doctrines propagated by the church. Nietzsche believed that human beings had to consider not looking at life as having absolutes, but being inconstant since there was no God who could answer their questions. This belief while being authentic among those individuals who believe that there is no God, should not prevent human beings from displaying feelings of love because love is part of their empathetic nature. Without empathy, which is a core Christian belief that is essential for development of love, human beings would not be any better than animals. Indeed, Nietzsche believed that human beings were nothing other than a higher form of animal who were naturally incapable of love; the latter being a part of Christian church doctrine to control them. Love is a core thought in Christianity and is the basis upon which this religion has been based. However, Nietzsche is highly critical of this concept because he believes that it does not define the real intention of Jesus when he preached it; rather, love has come to be corrupted by the leadership of the church so that it can be able to achieve its own ends (Nietzsche, 2003, p.7). Nietzsche is a great admirer of Jesus, stating that he is unique through his attempt to break the hold of religion over people through his teachings. However, he makes the point that despite the obvious nature of Jesus’ teachings concerning love, the church has worked towards using them to further its own ends through bringing people back to a situation that Jesus attempted to bring to an end to; that of a hierarchical religion. Thus, according to Nietzsche the Christian ideology concerning love does not stem from Jesus himself but from church leaders who use it as a means of achieving power in the society. According to him, there has only ever been one Christian and that was Jesus who died on the cross whose teaching came to be corrupted to suit some religious parties’ malicious ends. When this argument is considered, there develops a conclusion that Nietzsche’s reason for doubting Christian love is not authentic enough because despite the corruption of Jesus’ teachings that has taken place, the reality is that many good has taken place in the world because of these teachings. Love is often considered the essence of Christianity and it is for this reason that Nietzsche became very critical of it. In reference to Matthew’s reference to Jesus seeing a multitude and being moved to compassion for them, Nietzsche stated that Christianity was a religion of pity that had a negative effect on its adherents (Hayman, 1980, p.42). It is because of pity that this religion displays that it developed a depressive effect on its adherents, making them a negative outlook towards life and working towards improving their lot for the better. Thus, according to Christianity instead of love improving the lives of individuals, it makes them slaves since it deprives them of their freewill. According to Nietzsche, the Christian conception of love is one, which imposes church teachings on individual development, and this creates a situation whereby it is impossible for its adherents to have the freedom necessary to expand their knowledge beyond that which they are taught. In this way, it becomes extremely difficult for humanity to achieve a free mind set, which is necessary for developing a more advanced society that is not tied down by old beliefs that are not beneficial to it. Love is a destructive emotion that individuals should not indulge in because it deprives them of their autonomy as well as their ability to act upon their natural feelings. Therefore, human beings have to be more assertive in their acceptance of their true nature and should not fight against the latter because it is what helps them to fulfill their needs and ensure their happiness. It is possible that Nietzsche’s thoughts concerning Christian love were heavily influenced by the theories of evolution as espoused by Darwin and this is explains why he felt that human beings should not fight against their natural motivations or feelings in order to achieve happiness. Thus, Nietzsche’s teachings are based on his belief that human beings are basically animals who, if they fight against their nature, they end up becoming depressed as well as not being fulfilled in their lives. Therefore, moral decision-making is not necessarily connected with religion because despite many individuals having deep religious convictions, they do not necessarily affect the way that they conduct themselves. Nonetheless, human beings alone make moral decisions in their lives, since even those non-believers often know what is morally correct and what is not (Letwin, 1977). It is important to recognise that human freedom cannot be dictated by any other entity except the individual who practices the freedom himself. While most religions state that love is limited by the will of God, this does not necessarily mean that the stance is correct, especially when one considers that most human beings often live their lives without any reference to God. Nietzsche’s argument that human beings should not be tied down by the concept of love has some form of validity despite its being a little too radical in its outlook. The place of love in life has been an issue of contention for centuries after Jesus’ death, but while this may have been the case, it remains that individuals often live their own live without considering it. Love is an extremely complex phenomenon because in most cases, it is made up of choices that individuals make from the time when they become conscious of themselves and their environment to the time of their deaths. Therefore, the meaning of love can be said to be far complex for human comprehension and the best thing for individuals to do is to live as best as they can because it is never known when life will come to a sudden end (Soble, 1998, p.43). There have been arguments concerning the best way express love towards one another and it has become a fixation for many individuals especially those who subscribe to religion. In case one were to follow Nietzsche’s argument concerning love, it should not be done through being obsessed with religious formulas and rituals in preparation for the afterlife, but without making the most out of life as it is. Life can be considered to be a gift which cannot be squandered and this is the reason why individuals should not waste time on pleasing entities that are declared to be supreme by religion, but by making conscious decisions about how they would like to have fulfilling lives. In conclusion, it is only through religion and belief in God’s command of love that the latters’ will can be defined and put in place to ensure that people live their lives accordingly. This is not the case in Nietzsche’s writings because of his belief that all human beings have opportunity to shape their own destinies. In addition, he also states that organised religion should not affect the manner in which they live their lives in any way. The moral responsibility of individuals to love one another is also disputed by Nietzsche because where Christian teachings point out that all human beings have a moral responsibility towards one another because it is the will of God, he holds that the responsibility to love one another is not necessarily dictated by a belief in God, rather by humanity. According to Nietzsche, human beings alone without upreme influence are supposed to decide whether they want to love or not, and should not just do so because it is a tenet of religion. In this way, Nietzsche is correct because human beings as discerning creatures have the ability to decide what is best for them and have a direct hand in deciding their own destinies. Christian love, despite it having been an ideal for many centuries, has hardly been a motivation for many Christians to improve their lives and become more progressive and this has made it impossible for them to achieve their full potential. In addition, with increasing secularisation, it is yet to be seen whether Nietzsche’s belief will be proven right, making human beings to realize massive personal advancement. References Belliotti, R.A., 2013. Jesus Or Nietzsche: How Should We Live Our Lives? Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hayman, R., 1980. Nietzsche: A Critical Life. London: Oxford University Press. Hollingdale, R.J., 1999. Nietzche: The Man and his Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Letwin, S.R., 1977. Romantic Love and Christianity. Philosophy vol. 52, p.131 – 145. Nietzsche, F., 2003. The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Horace Barnett Samuel, New York: Courier Dover Publications. Soble, A., 1998. Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love. New York: Paragon House. Read More