NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Nietzsche: morality; How ought I to be? Nietzsche abhorred all morality; he felt it is fodder for the mindless masses (the herd). It deadens and destroys the individual, condemns creativity, and gives man no credit to make choices. It assumes man can not know what to do, so it lays down pre-made decisions for him to mindlessly follow. It ignores the nature of human instinct and stifles the growth of mankind. Moralists and philosophers both sought an order for the universe and a basis on which to define a universal morality.
Nietzsche throws these ideas out the window, claiming no order to the universe, but instead chaos. Likewise he felt that one doctrine of morality, while being good for one man, might be the worst thing for another. All societies have moral structures but those structures vary widely from a single society to the next. Conventional morality wants clear-cut, black-&-white definitions of good and evil. Nietzsche sought an ideal beyond good or evil. He even went as far as to claim evil is good it serves as a means for comparison and a catalyst for change.
Nietzsche had little esteem for the works of Kant; there can be no categorical imperative in a chaotic world. Kant's view of the moral man is one whose moral duty always takes precedence over his natural inclinations. This places man in a state of constant irritability in the face of all natural stirrings... armed against himself with sharp and mistrustful eyes. Kant's morality equates to shame shame for his natural inclinations, and shame for not attaining unattainable moral standards. Kant claimed acts of love, charity and brotherhood did not qualify as moral acts unless they were done completely for selfless motives.
According to Nietzsche these acts are usually performed out of avarice, greed and egoism. His interpretation of the categorical imperative might read, Do unto others so they will do unto you, he would see this as more consistent with human nature. He, like Firestone, saw sexual love clearly as a lust for possession, though he did not see it from a feminist point of view. Kant has no concern for human nature being selfish by nature does not assuage our moral duties.
Nietzsche had little reverence for the utilitarian ideals of Mill either. The concept maximize pleasure and minimize pain is simplistic by Nietzsche's standards. He aptly points out that sometimes the maximum displeasure is necessary to achieve the growth of an abundance of subtle pleasures and joys that have rarely been relished yet. Minimizing displeasure eliminates the capacity for joy. The virtues of Mills morality are aimed at the maximum good for the many; acts are judged based on their consequences to society. However Nietzsche felt that while these virtues may be for the good of society as a whole, they could be harmful to those who possess them.
He calls them victims of virtue. Man can be so focused on virtues that he resists the effort of reason to keep them in balance with their other instincts. These virtues can not come from an individuals reason because they lead the individual to allow himself to be transformed into a mere function of the whole. Christian morality may be the most disturbing of all to Nietzsche.
In fact, he has a cynical view of monotheism as a whole; it is the rigid consequence of the doctrine alleging one normal human type. Prayer is for those with no thoughts of their own and those, who on their own, can know no elevation of the soul. He scoffs at the idea of the Christian God as an object of love; if God were to be an object of love he should give up judging and justice. God is proud and vindictive, his love is not unconditional but instead depends on ifs. The Christian resolve - through judgment, guilt, and its concept of original sin to find the world negative and bad, has made the world a bad and ugly place. The Christian church is full of those who are ignorant and afraid; they mindlessly prattle prayers.
Knowing not what else to do, they follow like a herd. A true religious person is an exception in any religion, according to Nietzsche. Christianity is a narcotic, the opiate of the masses. It says the world is arduous but you can hide from the pain in the Church. Morality is clothing for the soul to hide behind. Christianity calls us to become members of the family of God.
Its answer to, how ought I to be? is the same as Kant's categorical imperative. Currans ontology of the person is centered in the community and the church. Ontological change or growth is spawned by grace, being saved by God. Nietzsche believed the opposite the growth of the individual is crushed by morality and conventional religion denies us even the possibility of elevated moods. Nietzsche sought to replace conventional morality / religion with artistic metaphors.
Life should be like a work of art, a creation unique unto itself, and limited only by the self. One should survey his strengths and weaknesses and meld them to a plan where they all appear as art. To him, this is a higher level of thinking. Conventionality has only made us good at becoming just like everyone else. Our duty is to question morality and to have the courage to embrace the freedom of self-creation.
His answer to, how ought I to be is: to become those who we are. He seeks a new day when a man can fashion an existence that he would happily lead over and over again. Homosexuality: Perverse and / or immoral? The question of the perversion or immorality of homosexuality cannot be answered in a universal way.
The definitions of immoral or perverse acts are both culturally and personally subjective. Catholic morality tends to oversimplify human nature, and even to deny the subjective differences each man possesses, in a vain attempt to create universal laws of morality. The Church's position on homosexual acts states that Under no circumstances can they be approved. Their position is based on several things.
Foremost, the scripture defines homosexuality as an act of grave depravity in contradiction with natural law. To deprave means: to make bad or worse. The Church itself admits that a significant portion of mankind has homosexual tendencies. They accept that homosexuality is not a choice. They can define no psychological cause. The frequency with which it occurs in nature (in both man and beast) is proof enough that it is a part of natural law.
Asking homosexuals to go through life alone, ...
Free research essays on topics related to: natural law, categorical imperative, nietzsche, human nature, conventional morality
Research essay sample on Categorical Imperative Conventional Morality
