Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche: Twilight of the Idols: Morality as Anti-Nature
In Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols: Morality as Anti-Nature”, Nietzsche elucidates on the concept of morality. He posits the creation of morality as an attempt to quell our passions and desires. This happens in several ways but one of the most obvious examples of a conduit that imposes morality is the church. To Nietzsche, the church unjustly imposes morality on humans, and limits rational people from forming their own moral principles. This is why he claims that the “Church is hostile to life”. Nietzsche also claims that although some of our passions are stupid, to attempt to destroy them is not only unfruitful, but also “an acute form of stupidity” (p.1234). Desires
…show more content…
Is there really such a thing as a good or bad act? If one is religious, they might refer to the bible for these answers, and assume that because it’s in their bible, it must be so. This is the crutch of religion, it quells any kind of inquisitiveness from its believers, and often reprimands any attempt at questioning it. However, if we remove religion, how do we determine the morality of an action? Do we rely on what brings pleasure? Utility? Desire? There’s no real way to be certain. Additionally, another problem with prescribed morality is that it tends to dehumanize us. Let me explain: by labeling a certain action as immoral, it creates an idea of a ‘ right way to be’. In this ‘right way to be’, one can only be outside or inside of it. Meaning that if one has a desire to constantly have sex, this person is labeled as immoral due to Christian principles regarding sex when it’s public knowledge that humans have a natural desire to do so. Thus, if we’re allowed to create our own morals, we can eradicate the mental turmoil that having to prescribe to a predetermined moral construct can bring. Therefore, institutionalized morality is detrimental to our mental wellbeing and natural
For my interview portion of this response I interviewed a friend of mine named Nicole who is a bisexual. When I asked her about her fears of coming out her she said that her only fear was being seen as some kind of pervert or sexual predator.” I came out to my friends first, some were shocked but soon it just became something that people just knew and after awhile it became just as relevant as my hair color”. She also stated that after she came out to her friends some of those friends came out to her soon after. She admitted she was treated differently by people because of the discrimination bisexuals get by both hetrosexuals and homosexuals.“People tolerate bisexuals but they are not respected” She said that many people treated her as if she was confused or like she was only pretending to like girls because they believe that would attract men. She explained that most people tend to believe that bisexuality doesn’t exist.
However, Nietzsche’s idea of the powerful forcing their will on common people resonates with me. It is something we see in our modern society, wealthy people seem to have a higher influence over the average American. Examples of powerful people controlling others are found in politics, economy, media, and religion. Common people are lead to think in certain ways that the powerful need them to. Nietzsche said that people will only be equal as long as they are equal in force and talent, people who have a higher social group are more influential in decisions because average people look to them for information. The thing I do not agree with Nietzsche on his view as Christianity as a weakness because religion is a main cause of people’s decision
It is not the act, which is good or evil, but the intentions of the
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 and what his opinion of those ideas is’. It will give a brief 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. It will look at his background in order to see if and how that has influenced his work and opinions.
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
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.
...h goodness without a belief in God. When there is only the natural world, then people act in a way which maximizes their happiness without the sacrifice of others. Morality does not come from a set of rules created by a divine master. If it were, then it eliminates the concept of free will because people would only do good things merely out of chore and requirement, not because they actually want the best for themselves and the world. Morality is an inherent instinct in which has developed to fit the times through evolution of social situations in order to live harmoniously.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a critic and a German Philosopher from the 18th century. Nietzsche was the father of psychoanalysis and he formulated several philosophical concepts that have greatly contributed to the understanding of human nature. Nietzsche ideas had been misinterpreted by many people over time specifically, due to his style of writing. Nietzsche style of writing was adopted to strengthen his arguments on various controversial topics. In this paper, I will discuss Nietzsche’s idea of naturalistic morality, master morality, self-mastery morality, and how they connect with the affirmation of nature and strength.
This confirms Nietzsche's negative view of religion / Christianism. Nietzsche said that religion shouldn't How can religion not be an 'end-in-itself' for religious believers? A counter-argument to this would be to say that religion as an instrument is not a religion.
Where Kant’s system is based on a set of principles or duties, Nietzsche’s system is based on virtue. Nietzsche is critical of Christianity in general and its evaluation of morality. In the reevaluation of values, he shows how the characteristics of morality in Christianity are more prohibitive of living virtuously than those of Ancient Greece, which include strength, confidence, sexuality, and creativity. In Christianity, those values are pity, shame, asexuality, and humility. The set of values of Ancient Greece is considered Master Morality and the values of deontology is considered to be Slave Morality. Master morality is a step in the right direction for morality but still not the
When reading Nietzsche, we can pick up from him that he was very educated often better than most philosophers. Or so he thought. Although he had a very poor outlook on his culture and everyday society, he had very strong opinions when it came to humans and their actions. He made strong assumptions whether people agreed with him or not. An assumption such as, he believed most philosophers and researchers were not as educated as he was, which we pick up in his writings. Nietzsche’s main goal in his essays are to educate those on morality. First, Nietzsche believed that specific words and human actions have evolved over time to things they were never intended to become. Nietzsche
But what makes an action, object, or person good or bad? Pleasure, happiness or any other good feelings, or lack thereof, is what makes something moral. Even though there is no set, written rules for morality, the strength of morality codes worldwide. If an action or person distresses a group, it’s deemed immoral. An example could be shown with this quote: “In one view, Abe’s act is immoral because this shooting causes death, so it is an act of killing, and killing is immoral unless it is justified, which it is not in this case.
Nietzsche?s most famous statement is, without a doubt, that ?God is dead? (GS 108/125, Z P 2, etc.). Through many years of being quoted, contemporary society seems to have lost the significance of such a profound statement. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this statement is that ?we have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers? (GS 125). It is important to remember that Nietzsche did not believe this to be a literal event. Instead, he explains ?that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable? (GS 343). Such disbelief has begun to cast morality, indeed mankind?s meaning, into doubt. Without God, how can universal moral truths be justified? Where is the meaning of man?
I will begin first with the idea that sexual behavior should not be granted its own moral code. Sexual ethics only makes sense if sexuality plays a unique role in human life. If procreation has significance precisely because it is a contribution to God's ongoing work of creation, sexuality is supremely important and must be governed by restrictive rules, which would therefore prohibit sexual acts that are not for procreative purposes. This justification of sexuality as a unique aspect of human life, however, is dependent on a theological claim that there exists a God who micro manages the sexual lives of individuals. Without the presence of such a God, there can exist no separate restrictive rules on the nature of sexual acts. Even if we grant that there is a God, most people will agree that sex is more often used as a way to intensify the bond between two people and therefor sex is the ultimate trust and intimacy that you can share with a person.
Nearly all of mankind, at one point or another, spends a lot of time focusing on the question of how one can live a good human life. This question is approached in various ways and a variety of perspectives rise as a result. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Some seek it through the reading of classic, contemporary, theological and philosophical texts while others seek it through experiences and lessons passed down from generations. As a result of this, beliefs on what is morally right and wrong, and if they have some impact on human flourishing, are quite debatable and subjective to ones own perspective. This makes determining morally significant practices or activities actually very difficult.