Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle on ethics
Essay on aristotle perception of ethics
Superstition and society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle on ethics
The moral philosophy that we know and recognize today in the Western world is slave morality, a morality which puts forward ideals of fairness, equality, and democracy. However, many centuries ago during the medieval times, master morality was the norm; a morality that favors those superior in strength, beauty, intelligence, and status. Master morality preceded slave morality.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a philologist, who used his knowledge of words to trace the origins of morality from their ancient definitions. He said that morality was something that man had created, specifically the nobles, for they were in a position that enabled them to declare what is to be considered good or bad. The concept of “good” was created when the aristocrats examined themselves and saw that they were rich, beautiful, healthy, strong and powerful. Then, they observed the slaves beneath and saw how they were poor, common, ugly, dirty and weak; which led them to a conclusion that the slaves must be “bad” because they were they opposite of the nobles who were “good”. The pathos of nobility and distance, as aforesaid, the protracted and domineering fundamental total feeling on the part of a higher ruling order in relation to a lower order, to a “below” – that is the origin of the antithesis of “good” and “bad” (Genealogy of Morals, pg. 26). Their superiority that had begun in a social sense underwent a conceptual transformation into a moral sense that gave a definition of having a “soul of a high order”, “with a privileged soul”.
The slaves became angry and furious as they were labeled “bad”, so they made up a plan to change their miserable situation into something advantageous. Since, they were not strong and powerful enough to defeat their maste...
... middle of paper ...
...ol and all these lead him to achieve reason and conscience. Human understanding owes much itself to the passions. It is by the activity of the passions that our reason improves itself. The passions owe their origin to our needs and their development to our knowledge, for one can desire or fear a thing only if one has an idea of it in the mind (Discourse on Inequality, pg. 89). Reason is what teaches us to know “good” and “evil”.
The search for origin of morality had long genealogy from Jean Jacques Rousseau search in the evolution of man with his needs, passions, desires and Friedrich Nietzsche tracing the etymology of “good and evil” uncovering their original meanings. Individualism and inequality direct humans into starting comparison from which morality is built on. The different perspectives on morality are underlain by psychological and biological natures.
There was a constant tension characterized through slavery between slaves and masters. Slaves made the world of the masters and constantly threatened to unmake
Nietzsche begins his discussion of good and moral with an etymological assessment of the designations of “good” coined in various languages. He “found they all led back to the same conceptual transformation—that everywhere ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the social sense, is the basic concept from which ‘good’ in the sense of ‘with aristocratic soul,’… developed…” (Nietzsche 909). Instead of looking forward at the achievement for morality, Nietzsche looks backward, trying to find origins and causes of progression. He ultimately comes to the conclusion that strength implies morality, that superiority implies the good man. The powerful nobles, through pathos of difference, construed plebeians and slaves as bad, because of their inferiority in every sense of the word. From this concept of the pathos of difference was born the priestly morality, wherein the nobles were construed in an altogether different and less favorable light.
Nietzsche thought nobility was to see one’s self as the center and origin of value. He believed that people in power force common people into bidding their will, and those in charge are separated based on good or bad measures of their value. The rulers, or people in charge have master morality, the people who do their bidding have slave morality. Slave morality is how common people make their lives more bearable by using Christian ethics such as kindness and sympathy.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
Nietzsche's master-slave morality describes the way in which moral norms shifted through the through eras, from pre-scocratic times to the modern age founded upon Christian and Jewish beliefs. During pre-socratic times, value was dominated and enacted by the master class, who saw themselves and what they did as good. Value was defined along their terms of good- what was good for the master class was itself good. This notion of value was designed along the lines of nobility and purity, which included traits such as courage, beauty, strong-will and happiness. The master-class said yes to existence, and their values affirmed their belief system, which, due to their position of control, created their disposition as elite and influenced the norms for morality at their time. Since the master-class viewed themselves as good, they distinguished themselves from the weaker individuals, those not in power, as bad. The weaker individuals, in pre-socratic times known as plebeians, according to the master-class, were weaker for various reasons. Be it due to their unhappiness, victimization to unfortunate circumstances, weak-will or a lack of courage, pride, or a combination of any of these despicable or non virtuous values. According to the master-class, adherence to these weak values initiated a form of fear within the plebeian, which created a lack of self worth and a lack of freedom or self-consciousness, deemed as slavery.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
Nietzsche sees our past as replete with decadence and spiritual decay. Oftentimes the values that we blindly accept have a contemptible origin; such is the case with the foundations of good and bad. The definition of good was judged so by "the good" themselves, that is to say, the noble the powerful, high stationed and high minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good (Nietzsche 25-26). These words, coined by the nobility, are prevalent within our thoughts and did not arise from the actions of man; rather it arose with a direct connection to power and wealth. The value of good, bad, wealth, and poverty are deeply rooted in the core of civilization and therefore convey the advanced state of sickness in society by expressing a weakness of mind amongst the public.
Slaves are not inherently dangerous until they have come to understand and acknowledge the evils of slavery. It is only when they are educated and made aware of the situation that they were forced into, that they loathe the concept of being enslaved. Further, this enlightenment threatens the entire foundation of slavery as the enslaved have the mental capability to rebel against their master, although a majorit...
In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
David Hume and Immanuel Kant each made a significant break from other theorists in putting forward a morality that doesn’t require a higher being or god, for a man to recognize his moral duty. Although Hume and Kant shared some basic principals they differed on their view of morality. In comparing the different views on human will and the maxims established to determine moral worth by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, I find their theories on morality have some merit although limited in view.
Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we feel is necessary.
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.