Moral Psychology - Essay Example

Moral Psychology Name: Institution: Why does Nietzsche think that Christian and Enlightenment morality ought be rejected, and who does he think ought to reject it? Could we argue against Nietzsche without begging the question? Christianity and the enlightenment that came after Christianity were similar in that both quantified and categorized every aspect of man’s life according to some aspect of reason. Christianity relied on Jewish moral principles while in the enlightenment; all of man’s problems were solved through science [Jay12]. Nietzsche’s take on Christianity was largely influenced by Kierkegaard who was himself a Christian. He felt that the church practices at the time were extremely formal and showed no signs of evolving or changing. Seeking to understand the identity of a person, he escaped the commonly used scientific analytical methods and instead compared one person to another. He concluded that fulfillment could only result when a person becomes completely hopeless and finally chooses to build a relationship with God[Mer92]. This led to Nietzsche’s conclusion that enlightenment Christianity drained life from man making him unable to enjoy life thus he remained always sad. The rational solutions to everything provided by science ensured that man couldn’t think for himself and presented an ordered way in which man was to act always. Nothing new, interesting or spontaneous could happen in a Christian’s life (Jay, 2012). The main shortcomings of Christianity were identified as being self-centeredness and self-interest disguised as obligation[Mer92]. Nietzsche disagrees with Kierkegaard that man had no alternative but to remain in Christianity though it brought him misery and robbed him of the joys of life by criticizing Christian moral values and the enlightenment. He argues that God is in full awareness of man’s ability to succumb to sin and that’s why he sacrificed himself to pay for man’s sin (Jay, 2012). Christianity and the enlightenment have continued to act in ways as to refute God’s influence over their lives and adopt rationalism in their way of life. However, they still remain irrational since they still seek other factors such as science to guide their actions. This led to the proclamation by Nietzsche that ‘God is dead,’ and there was no reason why Christians continued to be bound by certain moral values since they did not seem to believe in the father of Christianity; God himself. In two essays of the Genealogy of morals, he regards Christianity as enslaving since people did what they had to or what they saw their seniors doing and not what they wanted to. He criticized Christianity as it had been presented by earlier philosophers including Plato and Socrates and regarded the scientists in the enlightenment as presenting worse contradictions than those presented by the founders of Christianity. Both robbed the man the opportunity to act freely and instead presented him rules to guide his life. According to Nietzsche, the solution was to abandon Christianity and all its moral teachings if one wanted to be free (Jay, 2012). Nietzsche felt that Christianity and the enlightenment were stopping man from realizing his full potential and making independent decisions regarding morality for himself. Departure from Christianity would give rise to a new generation of independent thinkers who would develop rational moral standards. Man could therefore choose for himself what he wanted to do and could act spontaneously thus making life interesting and therefore fulfilling. He would not be tied down by a set of rules as was the case with Christianity and could determine for himself what was right or wrong therefore adopting personal moral values[Ste09]. Nietzsche can be said to have been championing for a modern society which enabled man to get the best out of life by enabling him to exercise free will. His philosophies had an effect on the present society at the time and have also influenced the society of the 20th century especially regarding morality. He criticized the idea of having moral standards which man had to adhere to without choice and instead man’s ability to determine for himself what was right or wrong enabled him to realize his full capacity and achieve the much desired independence. This view was bound to result in moral conflict since one individual’s moral values could never be similar to another’s. Modern Atheists have not demonstrated agreement with his views with Winfried Schroeder saying that he encouraged the rise of cruelty and self-centeredness. By exalting a certain personality who would develop new rational standards for Christianity absconders, he implied that this hero could treat his inferiors with cruelty. He encouraged complete abandon of morality including that which barred one from causing another person pain or harm. According to him, traditional Christian morality represented the interests of the ungodly Christian rulers and therefore could not fit in an ideal world where everyone could decide for themselves. Schroeder notes that Nietzsche has a particular preference for the strong and hard hearted therefore encouraging persecution and execution of inferiors because it somehow enhanced the human race[Uni08]. Nietzsche strongly encouraged an individualistic way of thought and criticized any form of socialism portraying the social being as being weak. He refers to socialism as a ‘cold monster’ in his work known as ‘Thus spoke Zarathustra.’ He praises the man who is anti-social by depicting them as special since they could avoid herd mentality. In On the Genealogy of Morals and in The Antichrist, he discourages man from being piteous and unselfish saying the traits were a sign of weakness[Ste09]. The problems facing society in modern times include violence, cruelty among humans, destruction of social settings and individualism among others. Though Nietzsche’s philosophies led man to break away from Christian ideologies that made life dull and unbearable, it also led to the development of vices which have impacted society negatively. Vices such as violence were against Christian moral standards but he encourages the same despite its potential to inflict harm against others. This contradicted his idea for a life of fullness and enjoyment for man upon breaking from Christianity. Furthermore, his disregard for the importance of appropriate social settings implied that one could meet all their needs by themselves satisfactorily. This contradicts the ideal world where different people possess different capabilities and therefore depend on each other[Dou10]. Indeed, we cannot criticize Nietzsche without begging the question. His ideologies were focused upon enabling man to think as a free and being. He failed to recognize that man’s behavior could be both rational and irrational and ignored the conflicts presented by the latter. The new independence in thought and action led to the development of vices such as violence and moral decadence since the rational being did not heed to a conscience. Why do some philosophers believe in the unity of the virtues? Is it true that if you have one virtue, then you have all virtues? A virtue can be described as an ordered way of thinking or behavior that stems from an individual’s elevated principles of morality. Virtues can also be referred to as values which determine what a person believes in and shapes his or her ideas and opinions[Ric101]. In Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle says that virtue defines the human being at his or her best; it enables them to survive, thrive, interact well with others and most importantly be happy. It is important to note that these virtues or values are different for different people explaining the variations in behavior among people. Virtues are hard to learn and require continued practice eventually becoming a habit. Examples of values listed by Plato include self-control, prudence, bravery holiness and fairness[Dan92]. In some of his works such as Protagoras and Meno, Plato argues that different virtues cannot exist singly. He explains the conflicts presented when a person acts prudently without being fair or when a brave person lacks prudence to justify his argument. Socrates claim that a person’s goodness could be solely defined by their level of intelligence was challenged by Aristotle saying it did not recognize character. According to Socrates, an understanding of good and evil could enable a person to demonstrate justice, courage and temperance. This meant that if one possessed knowledge, then they possessed all the other three virtues; he claimed that “all virtues are knowledge.” Socrates’ intellectualism developed from this argument and states that when a person understands good, then their actions will be appropriate since they are geared towards whatever is good. Socrates suggests that different virtues have some extent of unity in the Protagoras by the statement “will you then explain whether virtue is one thing and justice and temperance and piety are parts of it, or whether all of these that I’ve just mentioned are different names of one and the same thing.”[Dan92]. Different commentators have defined this unity in different ways. Some argue that each virtue can be defined separately and that each forms a specific part of a whole. Socrates’ argument that all virtues are knowledge and if a person demonstrates any one virtue, then they possess all the other virtues; one virtue cannot be separated from the other. Others argue that Socrates opposes the view that virtues are specific components of a whole in that they can all be identified as a demonstration of the understanding of good and bad. Vlastos argues Socrates’ earlier works such as Laches and Meno demonstrate the first argument that virtues are distinct components of a whole and his view must have been the same in the Pythagoras. However, the understanding of the unity of virtues in the Laches supports neither of the two arguments proposed above for the concept of the unity of virtues in the Protagoras[Dan92]. In Vlastos understanding, wisdom/understanding of good and bad is a component of virtue just like bravery, fairness temperance and holiness in the Protagoras. In the Laches, Socrates maintains that all virtues are components of a whole but they are all brought together by wisdom. This could be interpreted to mean that all the virtues constitute wisdom. Socrates’ is seen to support the second argument for the concept of unity in the Protagoras when he says, “Now you said that they are not names applying to one thing but each is the name of a separate thing.” However, it is seen that Vlastos’ argument about Socrates’ view about the unity of virtues in his earlier works is correct. This is inferred from the discussion between Socrates and Laches about courage when the former suggests that they study a part of a virtue since it would be tasking to regard virtue as a whole[Dan92]. In the Laches, Socrates says that bravery, temperance and holiness are separate components of virtue and that Nicias shares a similar view. However, it is important to note that while Vlastos regards all the virtues equally in his explanation for their unity, the Laches seems to elevate wisdom above the other virtues, “someone who is courageous will also be temperate, because courage requires wisdom, and if one has wisdom (or knowledge of good and evil) one cannot fail to be temperate.” It can be said therefore that the virtues are united through the understanding of what is good and what is evil. This argument is supported by the fact that when has wisdom then they also have all the other virtues. Furthermore, wisdom is evident in all virtuous deeds[Dan92]. Thus, there exists a conflict in the way the unity of virtues is conceptualized in the Protagoras and in the Laches. In the former, all the virtues can be identified as the understanding of good and bad while in the latter, possession of wisdom guarantees possession of all other virtues and any virtuous act is accompanied by wisdom. However, there is a similarity in both concepts in that they recognize wisdom as a uniting factor for all virtues. Aristotle’s describes virtues as trends influenced by the habits acquired over time that cause us to do the right thing in whatever situations. He also argues that every virtue involves two ends; too much or too little of the virtue[Ric101]. This means that one can perform virtuous acts whether they have wisdom or not which is in conflict with Socrates’ views expressed above on the unity of virtues. In the Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle states that, “it is not possible to possess excellence in the primary sense without wisdom, nor to be wise without excellence of character … since if wisdom, which is one, is present, [the excellences] will all be present along with it.”[JMW05]. This is in agreement with Socrates’ definition of virtue and supports his concept of the unity of virtues in Laches. However, Aristotle does not agree with Socrates’ idea that possession of one virtue; in this case wisdom, guarantees one having all the other virtues. His opposition can be explained using his ethical theory that different situations and different people invoke different feelings and reactions in different human beings and character excellence would be attained when one successfully acts in the right way in the different settings (Webber, 2005). In his explanation for virtue and reason, McDowell states that, “… no one virtue can be fully possessed except by a possessor of all of them…”[JMW05]. This shows that a virtuous person knows the right action to take in all situations thus displaying a unity of virtues in that his wisdom enables him to possess all other virtues. Philosophers like Socrates, Laches, Plato and Aristotle mentioned above have demonstrated that a unity of virtues does indeed exist. Their arguments are similar in that when a person can fully differentiate what is good from what is evil, then they can perform the right acts in all situations. It is not possible to do right when one lacks wisdom therefore it is correct to say that when one is wise, then they have all the other virtues. References Jay12: , (Jay, 2012), Mer92: , (Westphal, 1992), Ste09: , (Kreis, 2009), Uni08: , (University of Cambridge, 2008), Dou10: , (Kellner, 2010), Ric101: , (Kraut, 2010), Dan92: , (Devereux, 1992), JMW05: , (Webber, 2005), Read More