Category: Morality

Nietzsches Conception of Morality as a Disguise for a Will to Power

The concept of will to power assumes that the primary desire of an individual is to impose their will on the other people (Nietzsche 1018). Morality may work according to the same framework as ones morality serves as their way of dictating to others which behaviors and actions are within the range of appropriate or acceptable activities and which should be excluded because they do not match the expectations of the will perceived as the expert set of beliefs. Besides, all the actions of any individuals are conducted with a particular selfish agenda, and no actions are altruistic.

How is traditional morality understood through the images of a cage or a safe island surrounded by a chaotic sea?

Morality can be compared to a cage that limits the natural passions and desires of human beings. Nietzsche compares morality to a cage into which a wild animal returns after being clever enough to break free (188). The author maintains that morality is a set of artificial limits that an individual builds on their own. That way, morality norms are perceived as the source of order and safety that Nietzsche likens to a safe island surrounded by a chaotic sea  a place where the individuals feel more secure due to the created illusion of control over the social situation and behaviors that assumes its predictability. In other words, a predictable environment is perceived as safer than a chaotic one.

How are acts of moral judgment a form of self-deception?

Self-deception is the nature of moral judgments because relying on a set of rules that is universal for everyone, regardless of how limiting, presupposes the control over the peoples actions and the security of the individuals from one another. That way, the basis of moral is nothing but the self-interest of each and every one of those who create and follow these norms (Nietzsche 188). Moreover, Nietzsche describes morality as dishonesty and mentions that all it does is cages the individuals within its stiff limits and prevents them from becoming unique (189).

What is meant by the death of God and the churches being sepulchers?

The death of God is Nietzsches way of emphasizing the selfishness of the human population and their refusal to see anything apart from their own individual good. Churches are compared to the sepulchers of God because they are the main facilitators of the sets of norms that people have come to treat as their primary conditions of existence (Nietzsche 187). As a result, the peoples inability to see or hear anything that is different from what they were taught to perceive to the norms of right is their way to murder God without even realizing it.

Remedy: Explain Nietzsches conception of nobility

Nietzsche argues against the commonly accepted idea of nobility as some kind of natural divisions between the simple people of poor classes and those of the aristocratic background. According to the author, both classes of people have the same barbaric background and come from the wilderness; the only difference between the richer and the poorer classes is that the former were more aggressive than the latter in their pursuit of wealth and power.

What is the pathos of distance, and why is it important for the question of life and value?

The pathos of distance is the difference between the two classes (the rich and the poor) (Nietzsche 1017). The emphasis of this difference is what has been separating them ever since the beginning of time. The division creates a hierarchy necessary for humanity to be able to dwell on their perception of order in the world and an illusory goal of any human being to climb up the social ladder and gain more power, wealth, and influence. This behavioral pattern is maintained as a key to an orderly life that provides every individual with a purpose. The imprint of such hierarchy can be observed in the structure of every object or happening; that way, viewing the world around through the perspective of the hierarchy is a part of human nature.

What is meant by the good/bad distinction, on the one hand, and the good/evil distinction, on the other? How did those distinctions arise, and what are their roles in the goals respective of masters and of slaves? How masters and slaves understand concepts such as happiness, prudence, enemy, love, and good?

According to Nietzsche, the perception of the concepts of good/bad and good/evil differ quite a lot for the rich and the poor classes. First of all, Nietzsche points out that the behaviors typical for the evil individuals by the poor (such as the association with fear) are viewed as that of the good individuals by the rich. The same tendency goes for good and bad qualities. Since the duties and roles of the rich and the poor are different, their views on what is good/evil, and good/bad are almost the opposite. The concepts of happiness, prudence, enemy, love, and good are also perceived differently based on the classes of the individuals as their social roles determine which traits are associated with them.

Explain the first principle of Nietzsches new morality (his humanism), and why Christianity is the arch-enemy

Nietzsches humanism is based on a belief that the weak and those who fail should not continue living. Also, the weak should not be provided with help. As a result, Christianity that is based on the humility towards the weak is seen as the source of weakness that depressed the vitality of mankind.

MacIntyres Diagnosis of Modern Moral Discourse and His Remedy

Diagnosis: modern moral discourse is in a state of disarray beyond repair

How MacIntyres science fiction illustration and the story about the Polynesian idea of taboo illustrates the modern moral condition? What are the three characteristics of current moral discourse, and why is modern moral discourse like this?

The story about a Polynesian people that easily abandoned their old-fashioned taboos indicates their needlessness and subjectivity, which are comparable to the modern ideas of moral norms. The three qualities of the moral discourse are the collective decision making, the prolonged practice, and the engagement of diversity.

In what way does Western culture embody the moral philosophy of emotivism? How were the seeds of emotivism sown by the centrality of rules and the rise of the autonomous moral agent in modern moral thought?

Emotivism relies on an individuals treatment of one as an end and lets them evaluate the moral basis for actions. The positioning of one as a moral agent is central in the Western philosophy, hence its relation to emotivism.

How does the rise of the autonomous moral agent and the rise of the authoritative social expert imply the correctness of Nietzsches criticism of modern morality?

The rise of autonomous moral agents supports Nietzsches idea that moral is highly subjective and is basically an imposition of ones individual perceptions on the others or the will to power.

Remedy: A reintroduction of virtue as understood within practices, narratives, and traditions

What is the nature of practice, the difference between internal and external goods, and how practices provide and impose standards of excellence?

The nature of practice is to serve as the basis for the manifestations of virtues. The exact types of practice and its process defines the kinds of virtue and the standards of excellence.

What is the objection that some practices can be evil or incompatible with the goods of other practices, and how the idea of a narrative provides an answer?

Practices are divided into good and evil; however, the practices that are completely evil are not considered as existing. Instead, the narrative of each practice (its context) is seen as what defines whether a practice should be considered good or evil. For instance, a good practice may result in damage, and an evil practice may be viewed as ones will to excel.

How is a moral agents a co-author in a narrative quest and how a narrative provides unity, moral particularity and intelligibility to an agents actions?

A moral agent judges the practices from their individual perspective which is shaped by a multitude of different factors. As a result, the perceptions of the same action or an event by different individuals way be exactly opposite. The perspectives of the moral agents, as well as their reactions, add to the way an event is viewed by the others (MacIntyre 93). That way, the moral agents who react are seen as co-authors in a narrative.

What is a social tradition for MacIntyre and how a no narrative can exist or be understood apart from social traditions?

Social traditions are a relationship between peoples behaviors and perspectives in terms of the perception of virtues as a part of life (certain actions are seen only within social constructs based on virtues; for instance, bravery is associated with being a soldier). Narrative become undefined when an event happens before anyone reacts to it or their reaction makes an impact. The reaction may be different in various periods, and thus, the narrative becomes undefined.

Why and in what way MactIntyres Aristotelian account is supposed to be a superior answer to the modern moral chaos over Nietzsches answer

The modern moral chaos is seen as a set of norms and rules remaining as the parts the older traditions (considering the perspective of Aristotle) (MacIntyre 95). However, Nietzsches idea of the selfish man presupposes an ongoing process of the formation of moral judgments by the modern individuals who impose them on one another.

Reflection

Speaking about lessons he wanted to share with me, my interviewee said, Be aware of other people. Look at where they are going and make sure you do not impede them. Look at what they want and, if it is right for them to want it, help them to get it. Develop a reputation as a good person, gain their admiration, and people will always try to help you. Life is not something you can live alone. We all need others to help us sometimes.

In my opinion, the wisdom of my Great Uncles words is quite obvious. However, its deeper comprehension is complicated by the fact that his perception of the meaning of different parts of the statement is rather individual. For instance, he says, if it is right for them to want it, help them to get it, I believe, the reasons for wanting something are highly unique for each person and thus, the moral judgment may differ depending on a perspective.

MacIntyres diagnosis that we are using evaluative terms and ideas that have no stable shared meaning accurately characterizes this particular example as my interviewees advice is wise and valuable; however, it may be easily misinterpreted.

Works Cited

MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science.

The debate on morality has been described by experts as emotive and controversial. This is partly because different groups have different perceptions of the two concepts that are entrenched in political, social, and cultural biases. For example, the discussion on whether the LGBT group should be granted a free space, similar to the one heterosexuals have in society, has elicited an unending argument in many parts of the world (Appiah, 2010).

Religious groups assert that God created man and woman for them to complement each other sexually, both for enjoyment and reproduction. Such groups continue to argue that if that was not the case, then God would have created two men or two women. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discussion by attempting to give an insight into what constitutes moral and immoral behavior as well as the relationship that exists between morality and religion.

The Definition of Morality

The concept of morality has been dealt with in great depth by scholars from varied disciplines. Despite this, no consensus has been reached on the precise definition of morality as different people have their own unique views on the topic. Since there is no particular definition that cuts across all disciplines, how a person comprehends or internalizes issues relating to morality is highly determined by, among other factors, where they come from, their expertise, and their religious orientation. Their religious extraction further depends on the extent to which they are rooted in spiritual issues.

Rachels and Rachels (1986) recognize the ambiguity that exists in the definition of morality. While the authors agree that it is difficult to come up with the exact definition of what constitutes morality, they also assert that the subject is closely interlinked with reasoning and impartiality. In this regard, Rachels and Rachels (1986) argue that individual consideration of moral behavior must be backed by sufficient reasons. If the reasons are valid to the other parties involved, then the stand of the first person is deemed moral. On the contrary, any reason or action that is not agreed upon by all parties involved in such a debate must be countered by an opposing view.

The authors use the case of Baby Jane Doe, who was born handicapped, as an example. Doctors, family, and human rights activists could not agree on whether the baby should have undergone surgery to try and repair her deformity or not. Ultimately, the family agreed with the suggestion of one of the consulting doctors to withhold any surgical solution on the handicapped child until more tests were done. According to Rachels and Rachels (1986), one could argue that the decision was a moral one as it upheld the sanctity of life. However, the possible suffering of the baby due to the deformity presents an angle that can be used to claim that the decision was immoral.

Like Rachels and Rachels (1986), Shafer-Landau (2015) admits that there is no widely agreed-upon definition of morality. However, the scholar argues that the concept of morality can be defined by asking ethical questions (such as fairness and service to others) or by comparing moral principles with those that surround the law, self-interest, etiquette, and tradition. Even so, Shafer-Landau (2015) clearly asserts that morality and the law are very distinct because some immoral acts, such as infidelity, are not unlawful and vice versa.

Consequently, Shafer-Landau (2015) concurs with Rachels and Rachels (1986) view on moral reasoning. Like any other argument, moral reasoning involves a culmination of reasons and assumptions that these reasons are meant to support a way of doing things. In simple terms, Shafer-Landau (2015) contends that human beings have no moral duties and should be free from moral criticism. Indeed, since humans are moral agents, their behaviors should be guided by the ethical decisions they make. Moreover, these moral decisions should not work against other people as all human lives are sacred.

Morality, Religion and Social Norms

As Rachels and Rachels (1986) point out, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the tenets of morality and religion as the two are intertwined. As a matter of fact, religious leaders are considered to have better insight into morality than other people in society. This is not merely because they are thought to have good morals but because they are believed to understand the complexities of the same.

What Rachels and Rachels (1986) try to portray is that although religion and morality are related concepts, the choice of behavior lies with an individual and is based mainly on the individuals social norms. God does not force people to follow his commands, but they must be prepared to bear the consequences of their actions if they do not. Perhaps, it is the fear of the repercussions of immorality that makes some people more committed to Christianity than others.

To sum it all, the definition of the concept of morality is ambiguous. However, given the discussion above, one can elucidate the meaning of morality by using the related concept of moral reasoning. What is considered morally right or wrong depends on the ability to defend ones actions. Nevertheless, regardless of the reasons, people are generally expected to act with impartiality, recognizing the fact that human life is sacred, and success or happiness must not be obtained at the expense of other people. Further, basic common sense requires people to carry themselves in such a manner that ensures both their dignity and fairness to others.

References

Appiah, K. A., (2010). What were we thinking? Dallas News. Web.

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (1986). The elements of moral philosophy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Shafer-Landau, R. (2015). The fundamentals of ethics. London: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

Lawyers or attorneys have one of the most important, challenging and at some point complicated responsibilities among the many other professions that we have today. There are many different kind of lawyers, but the most prominent and probably with the most challenging role are the criminal lawyers. Because of the responsibilities that lawyers have once they have committed themselves to their clients, there are times that their morality is put to test.

The Criminal Lawyers Duties to their Clients

A lawyer has to be with a client loyal, knowledgeable, skillful, and industrious. A lawyer shall use all suitable means to protect and advance the clients legitimate rights, claims, and objectives. A lawyer shall not be frightened by a real or imagined fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity, nor be influenced by mere self-interest (Lawyers Duties to Clients, 2008)

The above statement summarized the lawyers duties to every client who may seek for their services. This can be perceived as easy in a way that people may of course seek the lawyers assistance in cases wherein they need to prosecute somebody who may have done their harm or if the client feels that his/her right has been breached and he/she wants to fight for it. This is exactly what lawyers are trained for. They are to protect and help uphold the rights of every individual. They have dedicated themselves into ensuring that their clients intentions will be served rightfully.

But this very duty of the lawyers is said to be tough in some instances wherein they have to defend their clients, especially when the case is a much publicized one and many proofs have been pointed out against the client even before any court trial proceedings.

If I am a lawyer, what will I do if I personally think that my client is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Will I continue to defend him/her? What if my morality will be at stake?

First, we need to think about the real meaning of morality? According to Cohen (1985) being moral is being truthful and at the same time defending what you believe is right and true. Being a morally good person is also achieved by serving others what you think is best for them. And lastly, being a morally good person means being able to keep what you have committed upon. This means that once a lawyer has agreed to somebody that he will defend him, that agreement will be binding and the lawyer should be loyal to the said client. He will not act as a traitor by breaching the trust given to him by the client.

With Cohens article, it can be clearly inferred that lawyers can indeed maintain their morals by keeping with their words and ensuring that the interest of their client, however bad or negative they are perceived by the people, are served justifiably.

Secondly, we need to analyze if the client can indeed seek for a lawyers assistance to defend himself (even though he believed to have committed a crime)? It is stated in the basic principles of lawyers that all persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings (Office of the Human Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002). This means that anyone and no one in particular can ask any lawyer to defend him as long as he believes that the lawyer can best serve his interest as a client.

Also, there are instances wherein the client or the defender doesnt have the financial resources to support his needs in paying for the lawyers services. In this instance, the government itself will be providing a lawyer who can justifiably defend the client. It is stated in the basic principles of lawyers that:

Governments shall ensure the provision of sufficient funding and other resources for legal services to the poor and, as necessary, to other disadvantaged persons. Professional associations of lawyers shall cooperate in the organization and provision of services, facilities and other resources (Office of the Human Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002)

Even those who are already in jail can avail of the lawyers services thru the governments assistance because it is imparted in every lawyers basic principle that

All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials (Office of the Human Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002)

It is also worth noting that every lawyers basic premise is that anybody is innocent until proven guilty. Hence, even if there are a number of proofs that will point out against the client, he can still be considered innocent unless the verdict against him is given by the judge of the court. The lawyer will have to find ways and present claims or evidences that will prove that the client is not guilty after all. Or if he the lawyer thinks that a guilty verdict will be imposed. It will then be his responsibility to somehow prevent his client for getting a very serious punishment. This is due to the fact that parts of the duties of the lawyers to their clients are (Wasserman, 1988):

1. It is the lawyers duty to any client the he/she does not prevent against the coexisting obligation to treat with consideration all persons involved in the legal process and to avoid the punishment of harm on the appellate process, the courts, and the law itself.
2. Lawyers should not become emotionally attached to each client s this will negative affect or impair sound judgment over the case.
3. Lawyers should always ensure that the best interest of the client will be served and that the clients lawful objectives, while mindful of their concurrent duties to the legal system and the public good are maintained.
4. It also a big duty of the lawyers to provide his clients with all the information, however negative it may sound such as the varied potential results, possible charges, schedules, and the accessibility of alternative dispute decision. This would also mean that the lawyer will not allow his client to have unrealistic

Conclusion

Thus, from this list of basic principles alone coupled with the articles presented by Cohen and Wasserman, it can be perceived that lawyers especially the defense attorneys must and should always defend the clients whatever the circumstances are, even if it means putting their morality at stake. And It is the defense attorneys responsibility to defend the client who has asked for his services. This is what the lawyers are trained for. And this is what they have sworn right after they passed the bar exams. At any rate, moral issues are very vague concept and as defense lawyers, they have the very reasons to show that their morals are kept within perspective while serving their clients.

References:

Cohen, Elliot D. 1985. Pure Legal Advocates and Moral Agents: Two Concepts of A lawyer in an Adversary System. Criminal Justice Ethics : 38-59.

Lawyers Duties to Clients. 2008. Allatorneysweb.com. [online]. Web.

Office of the Human Commissioner for Human Rights. 2002. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers [online]. Web.

Wasserman, Steven. 1988. The Philosopher as Public Defender: In Defense of a Rapist. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 4, No. 1.

Nietzsche believes in several aspects that lead to slave morality. The aspects include industrial Revolution, Christianity, democracy, enlightenment, strength of humans and equal coexistence that contribute to slavery morality (Plato 21). Master morality according to Nietzsche came in existence because the society was dominated by the ruling class.

The author believes that moral concept of good originated from those people who benefited from egoistic actions. Nietzsche further claims that this is not accurate historically because practical use of good came in lately. The major difference between good morality and bad morality according to Nietzsche is that good morality is connected to nobility and bad morals are linked to the common man and simplicity.

Slave morality is characterized by resentment in the sense that a slave is fearful and pessimistic. This is because the slaves are emancipated, abused, weary, suffering and doubtful of themselves. In slavery morality, good has a different meaning of tending to reduce suffering and evil has a contrast meaning of tending to instigate fear. According to Nietzsche, master morality inspires fear (31).

Nietzsches parable of the lambs and birds of pray outlines the differences in slave morality and noble morality. The parable is explained in order to understand the source of good as natural form of resentment. The author uses the parable to show that naturally, birds of prey might be considered by lambs as evil since they murder and carry off lambs. While the author agrees with these conclusions as understandable, he also argues that this approach might be used to condemn birds of prey for murdering lambs (Sayers 34).

In essence, birds of prey should not be held accountable by the lambs for killing since by doing so, they exist. If slave morality praises its idea of good through praising those who do not murder, offend or hurt, then it is equivalent to praising those who are powerless.

The difference between slave morality and noble morality comes out clearly since slave morality does not look for revenge but instead they wait for Gods judgment day to restore justice. On the other hand, noble morality seeks justice and do not wait for the judgment day (Stuart 12).

The author uses the parable to show that what we may refer to as evil may be the source of livelihood to others. The major difference between good morality and bad morality according to Nietzsche is that good morality is connected to nobility and bad morals are linked to common man and simplexes (Aristotle 78). The author further claims that this is not accurate historically because the practical use of good came in recently.

The people who suffered under the noble morality came up with the conception of evil to refer to their masters. In these two moralities, anything good comes as a result of contrast to nobility. This makes rulers be seen as bad people. Courageous, healthy and powerful are in the class of noble morality (Rosen 4).

The struggle between evil and good is among the greatest and oldest notions on earth. The good has always come out unarguable at the top. However, if we can have a renaissance of the overthrown noble morality, then we might win this battle with our might.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Web.

Nietzsche, Fredrick. On the Genealogy of Morality and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Web.

Plato. Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.

Rosen, Fred. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. London: Routledge, 2008. Web.

Sayers, Sean. Platos Republic: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Print.

Stuart, Mill. Utilitarianism. Oxford: Parker, Son and Bourn, 2006. Web.

Philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries focused the role morality played in the society rather than tried to understand what is good and what is wrong.

Notably, their views on the role of morality were quite similar but they saw moral values rather differently. It is possible to explain this difference by the changes which were taking place throughout decades. Of course, it is also clear that the changes did not affect the way the role of morality is seen.

Before looking into similarities and differences of Nietzsches and Sartres views, it is necessary to outline major differences in the epochs. Thus, the nineteenth century is characterized by industrial development and numerous technological advances used by people.

When it comes to the twentieth century, industrial and technological development was even more significant and almost incompatible with that of the previous century. Nonetheless, people also learn about horrible destructive power of those advances and manifold nature of a human being as some people turned out to be able to commit terrible crimes.

Irrespective of these differences of epochs, the two philosophers saw the role of morality similarly. Both thinkers stressed that morality was certain set of rules people living in the society had to obey. Hence, morality is still the best doctrine on earth (Nietzsche 296). People tend to follow moral rules which support or, vice versa, create laws of the state.

Sartre also notes that morality can be regarded as an omen by which to orient oneself as people have developed numerous behavioral patterns for different situations (330). However, it is necessary to add that the reasons people articulate to follow the rules set are different for Nietzsche and Sartre.

Importantly, the philosophers believe that moral norms are followed in many settings but people have different reasons to obey moral rules. According to Nietzsche, morality is sublime self-deception and it serves as a tool for the majority of& the weak and the oppressed to construe weakness itself as freedom (Nietzsche 296).

In other words, following rules is a form of self-defense for weak and indecisive people who are afraid of taking on responsibility. For many people, it is easier to be patient and try to avoid conflicts and this is seen as a virtue. Thus, people tend to have slave morality and the society is based on it.

Whereas for Sartre, following certain moral values makes people more peaceful as they feel they are doing the right thing. The entire example of the man and his decision provided by Sartre is an illustration of morality in action. Therefore, each individual has a number of possible behavioral patterns to choose. Notably, these are patterns existent in the society.

However, each individual has to choose if/when values are vague, and if they are too broad (Sartre 331). Basically, a person follows certain norms accepted in the society to be a part of the society. At the same time, people are free to choose a variety of values and norms for different situations.

Another difference is that Nietzsche stresses that there are two major kinds of morality while Sartre emphasizes that morality is highly subjective and individual. Hence, Nietzsche states that masters and slaves morality can be singled out.

Masters morality is aimed at risking and trying to achieve goals. Admittedly, this is an individualistic paradigm and the society chooses a more collectivistic doctrine. Nietzsche stresses that people long for the peace of community and slave morality ensures that people can enjoy this relaxation (291).

At the same time, Sartre claims that there can be no universal morality and the only thing left for us is to trust our instincts (331).

The philosopher focuses on the subjective nature of moral values and claims that people have to choose which behavioral pattern to choose in this or that situation. Sartre notes that people have developed a number of doctrines (Christian, personal, and so on) and everybody is responsible for his/her choice (Sartre 330).

Besides, as any doctrine, morality presupposes rewards and punishment. Nietzsche sees reward as the promise of eternal bliss and punishment as condemnation on the behalf of the society (Nietzsche 298). Whereas, according to Sartres viewpoint, reward is peace and punishment is guilty consciousness. Since a person is free and responsible for his/her actions, he/she can reward and punish him/herself.

On balance, it is possible to note that Nietzsche and Sartre both see morality as certain doctrine aimed at helping people live in the society. However, Nietzsche focused on the view that the vast majority of people share the same moral values he called slave morality. Sartre insists that there can be no universal morality as people have to make choices and be responsible for each of their actions.

Admittedly, these differences in the philosophers standpoints can be explained by peculiarities of the society they lived in. It is possible to note that Nietzsche advocated masters morality. Sartre developed his view after Nietzsches ideas had been transformed and had led to horrible consequences for the entire humanity.

Sartre stresses that a person is responsible for each choice as doctrines which existed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union could hardly be seen as moral paradigms at all. At present, moral values also shape peoples behavior but it is still essential to make sure each person is responsible for choices he/she makes.

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morality. Ethics: The Essential Writings. Ed. Gordon Marino. New York, NY: Random House LLC, 2010. 274-299. Print.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotion. Ethics: The Essential Writings. Ed. Gordon Marino. New York, NY: Random House LLC, 2010. 328-333. Print.

Good and Evil, Good and Bad

This passage is taken from first treatise on Good and evil, good and bad. This treatise looks at the judgment given in the deriving of values (Nietzsche et al. 10). That is it looks at how the values are formed and how they can be judged to be real values of humanity or not.

This poses the question of how values really come to humanity and if they are representative of all people and of equal value to those who are required to uphold them. The quote describes the distance that has come between those who are rankled high and the masses who are ranked lowly (Nietzsche et al. 10). There is an indifference towards the masses and the transformation model that Nietzsche offers demands the pathos of distance.

The distance can change with the slave revolt to morality if the human image is overcome. Humanity has become embedded in nihilism. This leaves it vulnerable to spiritualization and looking to the external to indicate its morality. However, if humanitys self-image is broken and the spirit set free it can work with the intellectual to find greater and otherwise unknown comprehension of the human nature.

The right to create values was taken by those in high ranks who became the ones to judge what is good based on their own experience (Nietzsche et al. 10). They based their perception of what is good on what they received and deemed good while the masses were obliged to accept that as common and if common then as the norm of the values.

Usefulness itself would refer to the utility of the values. If those who are ranked highly give a value that is not of use to humanity or disregards those considered lowly then it has no value and it is useless to have such a value. This passage presents the philosophical arguments on values.

We Are Unknown, We Knowers

This passage is located in the preface. It is the starting point of Nietzsches discourse. It sets the stage for Nietzsches philosophical thoughts. By beginning to consider the human person in relation to the self, the thoughts about humanity can be better understood since humanity is made up of the sum of the individuals.

The we knowers in the passage refer to those who think and feel that they are in the know based on their knowledge, education, and experiences. They regard themselves as rather less ignorant that the other people and believe they know it all as philosophers (Nietzsche et al. 1).

Nietzsche introduces some reasons as to why we are unknown to ourselves. It would seem that we are unknown to ourselves being that we do not look for ourselves. It would be hard to find that which we are not concerned with. There is no attention to the self and as such self-awareness escapes us. The main concern seems to be with able to find and bring something (Nietzsche et al. 1). The attention is outside ourselves and there is little room for inward glance.

The second reason is that experiences do not form part of what is taken seriously understood and treasured (Nietzsche et al. 1). There is no concern to internalize the experiences. They just keep adding up in life without being meaningfully utilized because there is little time to pay attention to them. Life is rushed about and experiences do not form a concrete part of our lives.

For these two reasons, people are not their own knowers. They are more concerned with the outside world and even when they get experiences that should resonate with the inside they do not pay attention. This passage sets the stage for the next passage that introduces the beginning of the problem that Nietzsche discusses in the book.

Under Peaceful Conditions

This passage is located in the preface page three. It is the point from which Nietzsche begins to lay down the philosophical content of the treatise. It presents the problem that will be explored in the following treatise.

The original problem that Nietzsche considered was the question what in fact is the origin of our good and evil? Where does it come from? However, the original problem is soon transformed into the problem of the circumstances man was in while he came up with value judgments of good and evil (Nietzsche et al. 3).

In addition, the new problem also examines the value of the judgment particularly in their effect on human growth and condition. Have they beneficial or harmful to the fullness of man? The original question was reframed through philosophy by abandonment of the theological and concentrating on answers that would not be found in the mere outside world.

Nietzsche talks about under what conditions (3) since the human values were not made at once but rather evolved. They were formed over time and in a different manner. As such humanity came up with values is response to certain circumstances. Human beings are the ones who attach value to the values they hold (Nietzsche et al. 3).

This is important to know in philosophical study since it can be understood how values have changed with time and how they will continue to change with time. This is a good understanding in studying humanity and shed light on human condition.

After this passage Nietzsche goes on into the first treaty whereby he talks about good and evil and how humanity came to develop their values as well as what is at the heart of the values that have been developed so far. Do they truly represent what humanity values and are they truly valuable to humanity?

Work Cited

Nietzsche et al. On The Genealogy of Morality. Indianapolis: IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998. Print.

Roderick M. Chisholm claims that if human are not free then human are not morally responsible. This idea derives from his teaching of free will and obligation, free will and responsibility. A people subscribing to a moral code according to which a particular action is obligatory if and only if there is a moral principle which says that actions of a certain kind are obligatory and that the particular action under consideration is of that kind.

Chisholm argument is based on the idea that a person cannot be free because of social and political issues affected life of a citizen. Chisholm states that the moral code does not and need not contain the principle that every obligatory action is free, neither as a logically necessary principle. It will be recalled that a person is free to perform an action if and only if that person performs the action if he chooses to perform it, does not perform the action if he chooses not to perform it, can choose to perform it, and can choose not to perform it. Consequently, in saying that a person ought to perform an action only if that person is free to perform it, we must keep in mind this four-conjunct analysis of free (whose conjuncts appear in an order which differs from that in which they have appeared earlier). A person is morally responsible for an action if and only if he is free to perform it (Chisholm 236).

Taking into account Chisholm view, it is possible to say that if philosophers therefore say that a person is morally responsible for performing an action if and only if that person can perform the action and can refrain from performing it, people may ask how this affects the principle that if a person ought to perform an action, then that person is morally responsible for it. Obviously, if a person ought to perform an action, then that person can perform the action and can refrain from performing it. In contrast to Chisholm, Taylor supposes that ethical theories should not interfere with metaphysical theories. The bodily-part view does not have this difficulty. According to it there is exactly one collection of bodily particles which can do duty for me. If one wants a materialistic view of the self, then, it would seem, one should accept the bodily-part theory (Chisholm 53). It will follow that a person will not have an obligation to perform the action if he cannot perform the action or if he cannot refrain from performing it. By saying that the agents obligation can be removed in either one of two ways, philosophers imply that man in the room does not have an obligation to stay because he does not have the power not to stay and therefore does not have the liberty to stay. The man does not have the liberty to stay when it is true that he will stay if he chooses, but so saying is a consequence of our desire to avoid other paradoxical ways of speaking. This goes against the idea that if he ought to stay, it is not true that he (physically) must stay-the idea that he has no duty to do what he cannot avoid doing (Perry et al 457).

When people have made a choice, it is possible that they should have chosen differently in the sense that no man could know for certain that people should not so choose. This implies that almost all of choices are possible, and therefore that it will rarely be the case that a choice is not obligatory on the score of being one that is impossible. This can be seen as a departure from the way in which people ordinarily speak and think since they do say and think that many choices are impossible and therefore not obligatory. People are morally responsible if they have a chance to choose their actions. Only a philosopher who thinks he can show that it is morally wrong for anyone to regard fear as an appropriate would seem to be in a position to criticize those who regard it as appropriate. Taylors argument allows for the existence of impossible choices, and shows that certain actions are not obligatory (Perry et al 459).

The part of the argument concerning moral responsibility is important one because any comparison of conjunctions should be made by consulting experiences and moral feelings, which are emotional experiences, and not by consulting sensory experiences alone. One who believes that ethics may be reduced to a science because he thinks that ought-statements are analyzable into statements of the natural science of psychology, might say that an argument from a moral principle and a singular statement of fact to a moral conclusion should be tested by appealing to experience (Earle 68). Every choice is possible or free, it is wrong to relieve a person from the obligation to keep a promise by saying that the person cannot choose to keep his promise and therefore is not free to keep it. They might really think that a man who failed to perform an action that he prayed to do would be excused from an obligation to perform it.

In sum, Chisholm is right stating that if humans are not free then they are not morally responsible. Thus this statement can be opposed by materialistic and metaphysical philosophers who state that ethical theories like this should be separated from metaphysical sciences. If a person ought to perform an action, then that person can perform it and can refrain from performing it despite of freedom of choice. The selection that takes place when we decide finds a counterpart in decision that choose and choose not should be used as the core actions in the previous circumstances of the two statements in the definition of free action.

Works Cited

Chisholm, R. M. The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm. Lewis Edwin (ed). Open Court, 1997.

Earle, J. W. Introduction To Philosophy. McGraw-Hill; 1 edition, 1991.

Perry, J., Bratman, M., Fischer, J. M. Introduction to philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford University Press, USA; 3 edition, 1998.

Introduction

For the majority of people, morals are the number of regulations that we are obliged to obey, they define what is right or wrong. Moral theorists wish to reveal how these regulations are rationalized, and at the logical outcomes of moral or ethical suggestions.

The period of illumination saw a questioning of spiritual and conventional values. If religion is questioned, then so is morality. Theorists are required to ground moral structure on a justifiable basis.

Discussion

For Nietzsche, there are two general types of morals: master morality and slave one. By this, he argues that moral standards arise from peoples social derivations.

Master morality regards the gracious as good and emphasizes heroism, bravery, and personal greatness as can be searched in the aristocratic morals of the ancient Greeks. Slave morality is for the weak. What damages the weak is called evil, and what assists them is regarded to be good. Christian ethics are classified as slave morality. This should be taken into account while proving the offered thesis.

Nietzsche regarded that every personality needs to arrange their moral structure: the key point of principles is to facilitate every individual to sublimate and regulate their obsessions, to emphasize the originality inherent in their being, thus, the thesis, offered by Nietzsche seems to be true. He regarded the origins of morality saw moral structure as arising from the attentions of social groups. For Nietzsche, the personality had to go beyond taken morality to arrange a new morality for oneself.

In the twentieth century, there has been increasing pessimism about the probability of a universal moral system. Arguing on the matters, how religion impacts the moral codes of human behavior, Jean-Paul Sartre emphasized the subjective judgments that a person must make to be genuine.

Anglo-American philosophers have argued whether philosophy could state anything significant at all about what is right or good, as they argued moral statements have no true value. For these investigative philosophers, the function of philosophy is to analyze how people may apply moral notions, rather than state what morals should be. Writers like A.J. Ayer offered that moral declarations just express the moral feelings or attitudes of the person and that philosophy has no way of estimating which adjustment of moral declarations is best.

Only wicked stubbornness and weakness motivate people to cling to these servile principles. It would be braver, more honest, and much nobler to cut ourselves loose and challenge to live in a world without God. In such a world, death is not to be afraid, since it symbolizes nothing more essential than the fitting termination of a life dedicated to individual gain.

Original autonomy, Nietzsche claimed, could only define freedom from all outside restrictions on ones behavior. In this state of living, each personality would live a life without the false restrictions of moral responsibility. No other authorize on conduct would be significant than the natural sentence entailed in the triumph of a greater person over a defeated opponent.

But the wish of lesser people to secure themselves against interfering from those who are better provides an increase to a false sense of moral accountability. The natural terror of being defeated by a superior antagonist turns to be internalized as the self-created feeling of guilt, and personal conscience locates severe restrictions on the normal exercise of human wish. Thus, from Nietzsches viewpoint, the essential self-betrayal of the human race is to present its liberty to the fictitious requirements of an invented god. Afraid to live according to peoples wills and wishes, people invent faith as a way of creating and then explaining the everlasting meaning of being downtrodden and defeated in life.

Moral codes may exactly describe moral behavior for an offered community at a provided time. Nevertheless, as time progresses and communities change, queries often happen about new conditions that are were covered in the innovative standard. Homosexual marriage, in-vitro fertilization, the use of stem cells is three such matters. Some moral standards entail general codes from which scientists can reach a consensus on new matters. Other moral standards are rather specific to the epoch and culture in which they were invented; they are complex to advance to some current-day situations.

Everyone is capable to be told what is moral and be capable of except for it at face estimate at first until it can be researched and ones true convictions can empower this moral or let discount it if one finds that it is wrong in some way, and can in this route find what they suppose to be the correct morals.

It is considered that Nietzsches largest flaw is that he falls short to take into an explanation that no one can truly come up with their own set of morality without any assistance from others. To do so would necessitate segregation from birth, something that would most probably end in ones bereavement.

In time if one is not weak-minded, he/she will study the morals set forth by the church, priests, or others and make their conclusions, and one life understanding will change people morals from person to person. Weak-minded people are regarded as a threat to the human race and are probably to follow the priests such as Hitler, Mussolini, bin Laden, and others who try to lead people to pursue their suggestions and standards.

Conclusion

Friedrich Nietzsches whole philosophy was grounded on the policy of evolution. Nietzsche was resentfully hostile to religion, and mainly Christianity. Christian morality exemplified the spirit of everything Nietzsche hated; he suggested Christs teaching worshiped human weakness and was harmful to the expansion of the human race. He ridiculed Christian moral estimations such as humbleness, compassion, diffidence, meekness, concern for the powerless, and service to one another.

He suggested such ideals had increased weakness in the community. As Nietzsche regarded two types of people  the master-class, an enlightened, overriding minority; and the herd, sheeplike admirers who were simply led, it is necessary to state, that not only religion helps to define the moral codes, but also the role, which people select for themselves. And he summarized that the only expectation for humanity would be when the master-class developed into a race of supermen, unhindered by religious or social regulations, and who would take power and bring humankind to the next phase of its evolution.

References

Leiter, Brian. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Nietzsche on Morality. London: Routledge, 2002.

Roberts, Tyler T. Contesting Spirit: Nietzsche, Affirmation, Religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Introduction

Given the fact that, while addressing lifes challenges, people are expected to observe certain ethical principles, it does not make much of a surprise that there have traditionally been a number of objective preconditions for the philosophers to make qualitative inquires into the very essence of morality, as a driving force behind ones behavior.

Nevertheless, as philosophers went about landing their views on morality and its implications, it was becoming increasingly clear that morality cannot be discussed outside of what happened to be the particulars of its affiliates existential mode. The reason for this is simple  the number of moralitys qualitatively different definitions correlate with the number of philosophers, who argued in favor of specifically their view on the discussed subject matter.

In its turn, this implies that, contrary to the claims of moral realists, morality is an essential relativist notion. In this paper, I will aim to explore the legitimacy of an above statement at length, while arguing that the actual measure of particular moral conventions objectivity is being reflected by the extent of this conventions practical usefulness.

The philosophical tradition, concerned with discussing morality

The philosophical tradition, concerned with discussing morality, can be traced back to the times of Greco-Roman antiquity. For example, Plato used to refer to the notion of morality as being synonymous to the notion of justice: True city and the corrupted city are put forward for us (by Plato) as models of human nature in association which display both justice and injustice, to be contrasted with the ideally just city, which displays only justice (Annas 78).

According to Plato, the objectivity/subjectivity of moral predicaments is reflective of these predicaments ability to serve some higher good.

If, for example, a particular individual decides in favor of ending another persons life, as the ultimate mean of saving the lives of many others, such his or her decision should be deemed moral. In its turn, this allows us to refer to Platos moral conceptualizations as social or external, as they are only being concerned with exposing solely rationale-driven motivations, behind peoples moral or immoral behavior.

Such Platos view on what should be used as criteria for defining the extent of a particular conscious acts moral appropriateness/inappropriateness corresponds to Kant and Hegels views on the subject matter.

Nevertheless; whereas, Kants moral imperative (treat others in a manner as you yourself would like to be treated) appears rather utilitarian/subjective, Hegels moral imperative implies the de facto existence of metaphysical objectivity: Act as if the maxim of thine action could be laid down as a universal principle (Mitias 83).

Thus, it would not be much of an exaggeration, on our part, to suggest that it was namely Hegels philosophy, out of which the method of moral realism originally derived.

As time went on, however, more and more philosophers were trying to analyze the significance of moral conventions from essentially psychological perspective, which implied these conventions relativist nature.

For example, Schopenhauer used to draw direct parallels between the notion of morality and the notion of compassion, simply because the behavioral stimulants, not related to compassion, are being innately malicious: There are generally only three fundamental incentives of human actions, and all possible motives operate solely through their stimulation: a) Egoism& b) Malice& c) Compassion (Schopenhauer 145).

Apparently, it was becoming increasingly clear to the European intellectuals of the time that morality is best discussed as something that is being created rather than something that it is being discovered.

Such point of view on morality is being prominently featured in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. According to Nietzsche, there are two types of morality: slave morality and master morality. The defining characteristics of master morality are -unemotional, pathos of distance, aesthetic refinement and cynicism.

The defining characteristics of slave morality, on the other hand, are  sentimentalism, strong adherence to the provisions of conventional ethics, religiousness and intellectual shallowness (Nietzsche 250). Thus, it would be safe to assume that, by the beginning of 20^th century, there were already two well-established philosophical approaches to addressing the concept of morality, which can be generally defined as objectivist, on the one hand, and relativist, on the other.

Nevertheless, it was during the course of 20^th centurys second half that these approaches sublimated themselves in the creation of three conceptually different moral philosophies: moral realism, moral relativism and moral utilitarianism.

The theoretical premise, upon which the proponents of moral realism base their line of argumentation, has been outlined in Timmonss article: There is a completely mind-independent world of physical facts (facts that concern physical objects and properties of such objects) and an objective fact is identical with or reducible to some such facts (373).

In other words, peoples tendency to reflect upon the emanations of surrounding reality in terms of morality or immorality is indeed being consistent with the objective nature of these emanations. Therefore, moral statements do in fact represent an objective truth-value.

The proponents of moral relativism, however, are challenging such point of view. According to them, the cognitive mechanics of how a particular person comes up with a moral judgment cannot be discussed outside of what happened to be the specifics of this persons cultural, ethnic, social and religious affiliation: According to the conventions of moral relativism, when I say that a certain action is right, my statement is elliptic.

What I am really saying is that, according to the system of morality in my culture, this action is right (Torbjorn 123). Therefore, moral statements cannot represent any objective truth-value, by definition. After all, whatever one person may perceive as perfectly moral, another person may perceive as utterly immoral.

The comparatively recent times, however, saw the emergence of a qualitatively new approach to defining the extent of moral conventions appropriateness  a so-called morally utilitarian one.

The foremost advocate of such an approach is Hilary Putnam. According to Putnam, the objectiveness/non-objectiveness of a particular moral convention cannot be discussed as thing in itself, but as such that is being reflective of this conventions circumstantial usefulness: What makes a (moral) statement& rationally acceptable is, in large part, its coherence and fit& Our conceptions of coherence and acceptability& are by no means value-free. But they are our conceptions, and they are conceptions of something real.

They define a kind of objectivity, objectivity for us& (56). In the light of recent scientific breakthroughs in the field of physics, biology and psychology, Putnams conceptualization of morality appears perfectly legitimate. In the next part of this paper, I will discuss what accounts for the theoretical legitimacy of an earlier outlined Putnams view on morality at length.

What accounts for the theoretical legitimacy of a view on morality at length

As it was pointed out earlier, moral realists base their line of argumentation upon the assumption that moral judgments are being inseparable from the objective essence of realitys emanations, to which these judgments apply. The closer analysis of such an assumption, however, reveals its conceptual fallaciousness.

The reason for this is apparent  the manifestations of surrounding reality affect people irrespectively of whether these manifestations are being subjected to a moral evaluation or not. In its turn, this suggests that these manifestations are best discussed as things in themselves and that the moral judgments that are being applied to the objective works of nature, are best discussed as secondary derivatives.

Apparently, moral judgments are nothing but informational models. Therefore, they are necessarily the subjects of principle of complementarity (the principle of complementarity refers to situations when two mutually exclusive theories can be applied to describe the essence of the same physical phenomenon).

For example, the statements two parallel lines may never cross and two parallel lines may cross are equally valid. The first statement is being valid within the theoretical framework of Euclidian geometry. The second statement is being valid within the framework of non-Euclidian geometry.

Another example  as contemporary physicists are being well aware of, an elementary particle can be simultaneously referred to as physical object or as the property of an electromagnetic wave (quantum dualism). A car that moves with the speed of 100 km/per hour can be simultaneously referred to by the spectators as moving or motionless, depending on whether these spectators remain motionless or move with the same speed in a parallel lane.

The very fact that there can be two mutually irreconcilable but equally applicable/effective theories, concerned with exposing physical realitys mechanics, points out to the absence of truth, as something independent of the particulars of peoples cognitive perception.

However, once there can be no universally recognized truth, than such a truth cannot be referred to as the actual measure of moral judgments objectiveness. Therefore, it is quite inappropriate to suggest that the utterance of moral statements can be thought of as being impartial of the contextual specifics.

This is exactly the reason why moral statements cannot be regarded as representing some universally recognized truth-value, irrespective of the whole scope of affiliative circumstances. For example, the statement pornography must be banned due to its immorality cannot possibly be thought of as being thoroughly objective, unless we assess its significance through the perceptional lenses of those people who came up with such a statement.

The manner of how people perceive surrounding reality and their place in it, however, is highly subjective. Moreover, there can be no any unified criteria for defining the legitimacy of moral truth, by definition. The validity of this statement can be illustrated in regards to what accounts for the actual realities of multicultural living in Western countries.

For example, the majority of Muslim immigrants to these countries think of their practice of cutting sheeps throat and watching animals convulsions in the pool of blood, during the course of Eid al-Adha celebration, as perfectly moral. The native-born Westerners, however, regard such Muslim immigrants practice highly immoral.

Alternatively, even though it represents a commonplace practice for Western women to walk around while wearing mini-skirts, Muslims cannot help referring to this practice as morally despicable. This once again exposes the fallaciousness of moral realists assumption that moral judgments are being thoroughly objective  this could not possibly be the case, because there are as many truths out there as there are people on this Earth.

The validity of an earlier suggestion can also be explored even in regards to a number of moral conventions, the legitimacy of which is being taken for granted. For example, it is commonly assumed that killing people represents a highly immoral deed.

This is the reason why committing murders has traditionally been considered the most dangerous criminal offense. During the time of war, however, ones willingness to murder human beings (deemed enemies) on the line of duty, is being considered utterly virtuous and therefore  highly moral.

In its turn, this once again illustrates the full validity of Putnams suggestion that it is specifically the extent of moral conventions circumstantial fitness, which actually reflects the measure of these conventions objectiveness. Such Putnams idea correlates with that of one of Pragmatisms founders William James: The ideas (which themselves are but part of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience (58).

Moral theories/conventions can only be recognized as thoroughly objective if our belief in these theories legitimacy helps us to gain practical benefits  pure and simple. To put it in plain words  if a particular moral convention proves useful, we can refer to it as objective and vice versa.

The best proof to the legitimacy of an earlier suggestions can serve the fact that this suggestion is being fully correlative with empirically observable aspects of how people take a practical advantage of informational models. How do nuclear physicists go about choosing in favor of applying one or another physical theory, in every particular case when the measurement of atoms properties is being concerned?

They utilize an essentially utilitarian approach  they choose in favor of a theory, the application of which would simplify addressing the actual task. When it is easier to refer to atoms as physical particles, nuclear scientists refer to them as physical particles. When it is easier to refer to atoms as electromagnetic wave, nuclear scientists refer to them in terms of a wave.

Another example  when it comes to treating mentally inadequate patients, psychologists find themselves at liberty to resort to the utilization of a variety of often mutually contradictory psychological theories, such as the theory of Freudian psychoanalysis, the theory of gestalt-therapy, Habbards theory of dianetics, or the regression method.

However, in the end, it will matter very little which psychological theory has been utilized to treat patients anxieties  the most important objective would be ensuring positive dynamics in the process of patients recovery. The most important is the actual result.

The same can be said about moral conventions/theories. After all, as it was pointed out earlier, they are nothing but informational models. By coming up with moral judgments, we reflect upon the surrounding reality  hence, trying to adjust such realitys emanations to correspond with the essence of our subconscious anxieties.

I go without saying, of course, that reality never ceases remaining what it is, despite being subjected to our moral judgments. Nevertheless, we do benefit from referring to reality in terms of morality, as it helps us to deal with lifes challenges.

This also explains why, just as it is the case with scientific conventions, moral conventions never cease undergoing the process of a qualitative transformation  hence, the notion of moral progress. As it was noted by Putnam: It is important to recognize that moral rationality and justification are presupposed by the activity of criticizing and inventing paradigms and are not themselves defined by any single paradigm (234).

After all, one does not have to hold a Ph.D. in history to be aware of a simple fact that, as time goes on; moral conventions continue to undergo an exponential change. For example, even as recent as hundred years ago, it was considered morally inappropriate for unmarried men and women to live together. Nowadays, however, in Western countries this practice became a commonplace occurrence.

Whereas, during the course of fifties, many White Americans thought of African-American students willingness to indulge in educational pursuits morally despicable, in todays America it became morally despicable taboo to even think that African-Americans may be inferior, as compared to their White counterparts.

Whereas, when Christian fundamentalists were exerting a strong influence onto the process of designing socio-political policies, the act of masturbation used to be deemed a morally wicked sin, it is now being referred to as merely an instrument of releasing ones sexual tension.

The fact that moral conventions continue to undergo a qualitative change, as we speak, is alone exposing the wrongness of moral realists belief in the unchangeable nature (objectiveness) of morals.

It is not only that, as time goes on, the validity of outdated moral dogmas continues to be revised, but it also appears that it is only the matter of short time, before the very concept of morality will be replaced by the concept of ethics. And, it is specifically the behavior of strongly moral people, which through the lenses of ethics appears utterly immoral  whatever ironical this suggestion may sound.

Conclusion

The line of argumentation, deployed throughout this papers discursive part, can be summarized as follows:

a) Morality is clearly subjective/relativist notion. It is not only that the specifics of peoples ethnic, cultural and social affiliation define the qualitative essence of their moral predispositions  the very course of socio-cultural and technological progress invariably results in undermining the validity of formerly legitimate moral conventions. In its turn, this suggests that morality is best discussed in terms of psychology, rather than in terms of a philosophy proper.

b) The measure of moralitys objectiveness is the extent of its practical usefulness. If the adoption of a particular moral convention serves the purpose of improving peoples lives than there can be no objections against such an adoption. Alternatively, if a particular moral convention appears to be hampering peoples chances to take a full advantage of their existential potential, than this convention should be revised or dropped altogether.

c) As time goes on, moral conventions will continue being replaced with ethical conventions. The reason why discussing moralitys implications was considered a legitimate philosophical pursuit in the past is that, until comparatively recent times, organized religion used to exert a strong influence on the very essence of public discourses in the West. Nowadays, however, this is being no longer the case.

I believe that the deployed earlier arguments are being fully consistent with papers initial thesis as to the fact that, given moralitys clearly relativist nature, it cannot be discussed as any objective property of physical realitys manifestations. Morality is essentially a reflective byproduct of the process of people addressing cognitive tasks. Therefore, it is highly inappropriate to refer to morality as the notion synonymous to the notions of impartiality and objectiveness.

Bibliography

Annas, Julia. An Introduction to Platos Republic and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Print.

James, William. Pragmatism. Maryland: Wildside Press, (1907) 1999.

Mitias, Michael. Moral Foundation of the State in Hegels Philosophy of Right: Anatomy of an Argument. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. London: Penguin Classics, 2003. Print.

Putnam, Hilary. The Craving for Objectivity. New Literary History 15.3 (1984): pp. 229-239. Print.

Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. On the Basis of Morality. London: Hackett Publishing Corporation, Inc., (1840) 1998. Print.

Tannsjo, Torbjorn. Moral Relativism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 135.2 (2007): pp. 123-143. Print.

Timmons, Mark. Putnams Moral Objectivism. Erkenntnis 34.3 (1975): pp. 371-399. Print.

Introduction

Moral values are crucial to the growth and development of human civilization. Through these values, individuals are able to coexist as a community and work harmoniously to achieve onward development. Many philosophers have attempted to explain or contribute to the moral value system. One influential 19th century philosophers who sought to highlight the different kinds of human moralities is Friedrich Nietzsche. This German philosopher argued that human moralities could be grouped into master moralities and slave moralities. Nietzsche praised the master moralities as the strong values that lead to onward development and evolutionary growth of mankind while he blamed the slave moralities for the weak and decadent nature of the society. This paper will set out to explain Nietzsches notion of slave morality and show that in spite of this morality being presented as inferior, it plays a critical role in the advancement of the human civilization and should therefore be followed by all people.

Nietzsches Notion of Slave Morality

Nietzsche believed that in the same way that there are no absolute objective truths in science, there are no absolute objective truths in ethics. The existing values are created and chosen by man. As such, both the master and slave moralities were a creation of man. Nietzsche traces the origins of slave morality to the cult and culture of ancient Judaism (Soccio 473). The Jews were enslaved for centuries and this led to a deep hatred for the oppressors. They therefore invented a moral philosophy that was based on resentment toward the masters. These ideals were incorporated in the Judaism faith and later inherited by Christianity, which is an offshoot of Judaism.

Slave morality is the morality of the weak or those who are ruled over. This form of morality is perpetuated by the resentment felt by the majority towards the individuals who have power and wealth. The masses therefore denounced the values and morality of their rulers. They regard their masters moralities as evil. Nietzsche declares that slave morality is a morality created by inferior individuals in their effort to control their superiors (Soccio 473). The value system in this morality is based on the guilt and fear that comes from the inferior individuals awareness of his/her own inferiority. This value system praises as virtues the characteristics of the inferior types. Attributes such as passivity, dependency, and humility are praised as virtues. The master attributes such as love of domination, pride in ones talents, and shrewdness are vilified and classified as vices.

Slave Morality is a creation of the inferior human beings who cannot face being alone in the universe. A person in this class refuses to exist as an individual and instead turns to the group for power and identity. This inferior individual is aware of his/her own inferiority, but derives some sense of power from the crowd. Nietzsche asserts that the herd has an inherent hostility to the individual who dares to express independence and delight in his own talents and fearlessness (Soccio 473). Such a person is condemned as arrogant and proud.

Nietzsche characterizes slave moralities as being fundamentally anti-life (Kirby 16). This morality does not promote creativity and striving for excellence by the individual. Instead, it encourages self-sacrifice and putting the interests of others ahead of your own. According to Nietzsche, any morality that advocates for humility, piety, and self-denial is in direct opposition to life. Life can only be fostered by a morality that advocates strength, growth, expansion, and expression of power.

Nietzsche expressed concern that with the triumph of Christianity in Europe following the adoption of the religion by the Roman Empire, slave morality has defeated master morality. The triumph of slave morality is for Nietzsche a terrible thing for humanity. Nietzsche viewed the European societies in his time as decadent and in decline (Kirby 16). He blamed this state of affairs on the predominance of Christian values. Christianity advocated for the Slave Moralities and this posed a serious danger to the onward development and evolutionary growth of mankind (Kirby 16).

Why we should Follow Slave Morality Values

Nietzsche had an obvious disdain for the values of the slave morality. In his opinion, the society must strive to overcome the slave morality in order to achieve its true potential. Nietzsche exhorts individuals to break free from this form of morality and instead embrace the values of the master morality. However, in spite of the negative light in which Nietzsche casts the values of the slave morality, certain values specific to slave morality are crucial for the advancement of the human civilization.

Important values such as democracy are only possible because of the notions of equality advanced by slave morality (Soccio 473). Without slave morality, the values of democracy would not be promoted in the world. Democracy is based on the notion of equality of all people. However, according to Nietzsche, the notion of equality is misguided and it leads to mediocrity. In Nietzsches view, democracy leads to the degeneration of mankind since it results in the predominance of the masses. A world without slave morality would promote dictatorship since it would be deemed superior to democratic values. This would be detrimental to the majority of humanity since it would lead to inequality and a lack of basic freedoms for the majority.

We should follow the values of slave morality since they ensure the harmonious existence of individuals in the society. This morality encourages people to consider the interests of others when acting (Soccio 473). Without slave morality values, radical individualism would be promoted. People would take actions aimed at promoting their success at any cost. This would include endangering the lives of others in order to achieve individual success. The abandonment of slave morality would therefore lead to the destruction of the human society, as we know it. This would be an undesirable outcome that should be prevented from happening.

Following slave morality is integral to preventing the outbreak of revolts in the society. History has demonstrated that when there is significant socioeconomic inequality in the society, the masses will rise up in armed revolt. Slave morality demands that the superior members of society should take action to improve the conditions of the poor (Soccio 473). If the slave morality is discounted, the superior members of the society will not take care of the lower members and this will lead to prevalent inequalities. This will be followed by revolts by the masses, a condition that is detrimental to the entire society.

Conclusion

This paper set out to discuss Nietzsches notion of slave morality and show why all people should follow this form of morality. The paper began by highlighting Nietzsches contempt for slave morality. It has shown how this German philosophy considered this a morality for the weak and inferior people. An explanation has been offered as to why Nietzsche has such an unfavorable view of slave morality. The paper has then discussed why modern man should follow these moral values. It has shown that some of the values considered integral to the advancement of modern civilization, such as democracy and mindfulness, are contained in slave morality. As such, slave morality values should continue to be promoted in spite of Nietzsches opinion concerning them.

Works Cited

Kirby, Steve. The Internalisation of Nietzsches Master and Slave Morality. Journal of the Society for Existential Analysis 14.1 (2003): 14-22. Web.

Soccio, Douglas. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. NY: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.