Before drawing connections between Care Ethics and Nietzsche’s moral theory, I will first present the motivations of Nietzsche’s genealogy project. In his writing On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche argued that the values of contemporary moral theories are misguided at a foundational level. Contemporary moral theories aimed at action-guiding. They evaluated our actions in terms of virtue(good) and vice(bad). In general, a good action can bring benefits while a bad action is considered to be detrimental. Nietzsche re-evaluated the notion of “good” and “bad” from a historical perspective. They did not use to address the consequences of our actions but rather used to evaluate social status. “Good” described the life of upper class, in Nietzsche’s …show more content…
Carol Gilligan, in her writing In a Different Voice, drew a distinction between the male and female ways of thinking. This idea was further discussed by Virginia Held in her writing Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory, where she used such distinction to represent two different moral theories. She categorized male and female moral perspectives respectively as “the ethic of justice” and “an ethic of care”(Held p.331). “Ethic of justice” prioritizes the general in our moral values, as Held stated, “we try to see what the general features of the problem before us are”(Held p.329). It starts out as impartial, abstract universal principles which produce general rules for us to follow. We then apply these general rules in specific scenarios. In this case, we prefer reason over emotion since reason can help us better formulate these principles and rules. Conversely, “ethic of care” pays attention to the specific. I will note that “ethic of care” is not meant to challenge “ethic of justice”, as Held stated that “it will embrace emotion as providing at least partial basis for morality itself”(Held p.332).This approach aimed at understanding the details of different contexts and narratives before making a decision. Emotion, therefore, is encouraged as a tool to resolve concerns within specific …show more content…
From earlier discussion of Held, “ethic of justice” attempted to make sense of morality from a rational standpoint. We regard moral agents with an impartial manner before developing general rules. This is an unfeasible approach, because we need to first construct theoretical moral agents that “hypothetically come into existence fully formed and independent of one another”(Held, p.325). In our current world, it is almost impossible to find an individual free from cultural or societal influence to model general moral principles after. “Ethic of Care”, however, accounts for our lives with worldly experiences. Held emphasized that we are creatures in social and sentimental context. Rather than being a de-relationed person. Our identity are formed by “the intermediate realm of family relations and relations of friendship”(Held, p.337). Due to its interconnected nature, “ethic of care” helps us conduct self-evaluation in a unique, absorbing fashion. In our society and culture, there exists a variety of ideas, rules and customs that we did not create. In this case, we evaluate ourselves by defining what we count as values from this variety. By focusing on the specifics of each situation and the emotional responses of each context, we have to reconsider our personal values before making decisions. This preserves both spontaneity and self-reflection as well as
We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.
Often, a person is seen as the embodiment of the value of their action, thus a person can be seen as “good” or “bad,” and the consequences of justice that affect them are based on the general value of their general actions. The value given to actions is based on a soc...
Friedrich Nietzsche is recognized for being one of the most influential German philosophers of the modern era. He is known for his works on genealogy of morality, which is a way to study values and concepts. In Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche mentions that values and concepts have a history because of the many different meanings that come with it. Nietzsche focused on traditional ethical theories, especially those rooted in religion. Not being a religious man, he believed that human life has no moral purpose except for the significance that human beings give it. People from different backgrounds and circumstances in history bend morality's meaning, making it cater to the norms of their society. For example, the concept of what is "good" in the ancient Greek culture meant aristocratic, noble, powerful, wealthy, pure, but not in modern era. Meaning, in the past the term “good” was not applied to a kind of act that someone did but rather applied to the kind of person and background they had. Nietzsche’s project was to help expand one’s understanding by re-examining morality through genealogy of morality; helping one to be more aware of a potential confusion in moral thinking. He feels that the current values and concepts that have been instilled into a society are a reversal of the truth, forcing him to believe that one’s moral systems had to have been created within society. In the works of genealogy of morality, Nietzsche traces out the origins of the concepts of guilt and bad conscience, which will be the main focal point, and explaining its role in Nietzsche’s project against morality. It will be argued that guilt and bad conscience goes against Nietzsche’s role against morality because it can conflict with the moral co...
In philosophy “Nihilism” is a position of radical skepticism. It is the belief that all values are baseless and nothing is known. The word “Nihilism” itself conveys a sense of abolishing or destroying (IEP). Nietzsche’s work and writings are mostly associated with nihilism in general, and moral nihilism especially. Moral nihilism questions the reality and the foundation of moral values. Nietzsche supported his view on morality by many arguments and discussions on the true nature of our inner self. Through my paper on Moral Nihilism, I will explain 5 major arguments and then try to construct a deductive argument for each, relying on Nietzsche’s book II “Daybreak”.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory that can be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents.
Enter here The ear splitting crackle from a whip is heard as a master shouts orders to a slave. This to most people would make them comfortable. The idea of slavery is one that is unsettling to most people. This is because most people feel it is unmoral or morally wrong to own another human being. However Nietzsche would not necessarily believe this because he did believe in a morality that fits all. Ethics and morality are completely objective and cannot be one set of rules for everyone. Ethics and morality that are more strictly defined are for the weak, the strong do not need a set of rules because they can take care of themselves.
Based on Rawls’s definition of social cooperation as something achievable for persons with certain moral capacities and sense of justice, Kittay’s understanding of moral ethics emphasized on sense of attachment, empathetic attention to others’ needs and responsiveness to those needs. Such attachment and the capacity to respond to vulnerability, show that humans are by nature not individualistic, but collaborative. Kittay also pointed out the fact that everyone may become dependent and may require support from others at that point. Such understanding, and the need to be assured that if we become dependent we would be taken care of, ought to be acknowledged when we discuss moral ethics of human nature. Women for example, make sacrifices on their maternal roles to provide care, and the ability to care have been politically fought for in many countries, as people widely value the dependency relationships between human
In his book On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche talks about a revolution that changed the original meaning of the word good. He says that good was a term used to refer to the aristocrats, the powerful, the warriors, the strong people. However, because of the resentment of the powerful by the weak, there was a revolt of slaves that inverted the meaning of the term good. Nietzsche blames first the Jews, who were oppressed by noble warriors, the Romans, and Jesus, who brought about the victory of Christianity, which is the ultimate revenge of the weak over the strong, the slave over the noble, the priest over the warrior. Part of Nietzsche’s theory is present in today’s parable.
Throughout this paper I will argue between Mil (Utilitarianism) and Held (Care Ethics). Mil is a British Philosopher well known for his ethical and political work and Held is an American Feminist and Moral Philosopher. After reading this essay you will have a good view on what Utilitarianism and Care Ethics is and also what my concluding position is.
ABSTRACT: On the basis of his metaphysics, Schopenhauer was led to advocate quietism and resignation as attitudes toward life. In the course of his career, Nietzsche reversed his estimation of Schopenhauer from initial agreement to final excoriation. In what follows, I examine and assess the grounds on which Nietzsche revised his opinion of Schopenhauer as educator of humanity. I argue that three fundamental issues divide Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. The first concerns the eliminability of human suffering. The second regards the value of sympathy to those who feel rather than are recipients of this sentiment. The third is the value of cultivating indifference to the suffering of others. Schopenhauer considers suffering as inextricably bound up with human existence, whereas Nietzsche views suffering as a sign of weakness that is ultimately eliminable from human existence. Schopenhauer assumed that sympathy and compassion have a benign effect upon those who experience these emotions; Nietzsche maintains they have the opposite effect. Contra Nietzsche, Schopenhauer deplores the cultivation of indifference towards the suffering of others. I defend Schopenhauer against Nietzsche on all three issues, though I argue that Schopenhauer exaggerates the ubiquity of human suffering and hence the need and desirability of the cultivation of self-denial.
This piece of work will try to find the answer to the question ‘In Nietzsche’s first essay in the Genealogy of Morals, does he give a clear idea of what good and bad truly are, what they are based on and what his opinion of those ideas is’. It will give a more simplistic overview of his first essay, it will also go into greater detail of what he claims good and bad truly are, and finally look at what he is trying to prove with this argument.
What is morality? There are many different views on what morality really is, but the one I find to be closest to the truth is Nietzsche’s view. Nietzsche completely reevaluated all of the values tied to morality and concluded that there is little true value in this world. Morality has always seemed to be complex and always been kept in a very limited “box”. Nietzsche goes beyond the normal limits and out of the “box” morality has been kept in. Nietzsche believed that there is no truth, just beliefs. Morality is just another belief. All beliefs are just interpretations or ways of looking at the world. Everything is a perspective. How I might view morality or what I might consider to be moral may be and probably will be very different from how someone else’s views. Nietzsche does not think we truly understand morality or the history of it. This is primarily where he believes other philosophers have gone wrong when trying to understand and describe what morality is. Nietzsche says, “As is the hallowed custom with philosophers, the thinking of all them is by nature unhistorical…” (Nietzsche, 25). Nietzsche believed that historically there were two types of morality: slave morality and master morality. Nietzsche says that, “It was out of this pathos of distance that they first seized the right to create values and to coin names for values…” (Nietzsche, 26). How we view morality now along with many other things has changed over the course of time. Nietzsche calls this conceptual transformation. Nietzsche says, “Thus one also imagined that punishment was devised for punishment. But purposes and utilities are only signs that a will to power has become master of something less powerful and imposed upon it the character of a function…” (Nie...
Nietzsche was a man who questioned the morality of his time. He dug deep in to what good really meant, and if there was a difference between bad and evil. He sought to look at the world by stepping back and looking at it with out the predisposition of what morality was/is. He looked at what he called slave and noble morality. He looked passed what was on the surface, and gave us many things to digest and discuss. In this paper I will discuss how Nietzsche’s writing can be seen as favoritism towards the noble morality by touching on how he believes the noble morality and slave morality came about, then I will talk about his “birds of prey and lambs” example which shows his fondness of the bird of prey, and I will end with my interpretation
In this essay I will first look at several reasons for the necessity of a revaluation of all values. Then I shall look at Nietzsche?s conception of the ?noble? and how through egoism, they can undertake the revaluation of all values.
In article titled “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Kant (2008) reads, “so the action’s moral value doesn’t depend on whether what is aimed at in it is actually achieved, but solely on the principle of the will from which the action is done, irrespective of anything the faculty of desire may be aiming at (p. 10).” The act of respect and fair treatment sends a clear message to society regarding the social position to gender equality. It promotes a better and happier environment for self and others based on the duty, rule or principle in any situation. Nodding (2012) clearly identifies there is a difference in treatment among men and women in the article titled “Maternal Factor: Two Paths to Mortality.” According to Nodding (2012) writes, “It is nearly acceptable for a woman to act like a man, but it is not acceptable for a man to act like a woman (p. 216).” Nodding (2012) sheds light on the attitude to the principle of acceptance regarding gender. All people should be accepted equally without conflict based on the act humanitarian. The relationship between men and women can be built which promotes a positive society for the future using the deontology theory. An example of applied deontology is the principles or rules