Category: Morality

Introduction

Humanitarian intervention constitutes an essential subject in the discourse of international relations. Nations have the right to protect their sovereign rights. The goal is to safeguard their territorial integrity. Indeed, nations have the right to confront an aggressor country militarily. However, some states also intervene to address domestic matters within a government in the interest of acting as a good international actor as provided for in the global system. The objective of such interventions entails minimising or ending civilian suffering. While such involvements present a nation as good international actor, questions emerge on the morality of the intervention. Why should nations select to offer humanitarian aid to some and not others? If humanitarianism is a principle that dictates the use of force abroad, then it needs to apply universally. However, why did nations choose to intervene in Kosovo while at the same time showing little interest in ending the current pre-ISIL attack in Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet the two countries need humanitarian backup? Such selective application of the discourse of humanitarian suggests the non-existence of such things as humanitarian interventions. Hence, it suffices to conclude that states are not moral actors and that they only ever use force abroad in the pursuit of selfish ends. Nevertheless, as argued in the current paper, this assertion is contentious.

The Contentious Debate of Humanitarianism

Humanitarianism as a topic in the discourse of international relations (IR) dazzles most IR scholars. Schrock-Jacobson (2012, p.827) defines it as ‘a deliberate incursion into a state without its consent by some outside agency, to change the functioning, policies, goals of its government, and/or favour the intervening agency.’ The discussion on the issue mainly focuses on the fundamentals of humanitarianism (Krisch 2002). Defenders of the nations’ rights to intervene focus their debate primarily on morality. However, Krisch (2002) asserts that the historical chronology of humanitarianism replicates the arguments on power abuse by influential intervening nations. This situation raises doubt on the justification of the morality of the right to intervene. Although the author discusses various arguments raised by the proponents and opponents of humanitarian intervention after the Kosovo intervention, he raises doubts about its legitimacy.

Support for intervention is mainly anchored on the principle of humanitarianism. For example, Spiro and Berkeley (2013) argue that citizens have all the moral grounds to end any violation of other innocent people’s rights, coupled with brutal treatments. He insists that it is through interventions that the deployment of force helps to enforce the standards of civilised conduct towards the innocent. This provision is essential in situations where oppression within a state raises to levels where the connection between the government and the population is broken. In such scenarios, the sovereignty of the country as advanced through the discourse of international relations by the UN is invalidated.

From a utilitarianism school of thought, intervention is justifiable. It can help to save more lives in comparison with the cost incurred if the intervention is not implemented (Spiro & Berkeley 2013). Indeed, in case a conflict within a nation escalates due to non-intervention, the stability of the neighbouring country is likely to suffer. In some situations, a humanitarian crisis may escalate to an international security issue. For example, the conception of nations such as Afghanistan as potential disaster zones through the1990s due to lack of intervention ended up being a global security disaster when the countries ultimately became the breeding ground for terrorists.

From a liberal school of thought, arguments in support of intervention are based on the sovereignty of states. For example, Graham and Wiessner (2012) assert that the sovereignty of nations suggests that none of them has a higher authority relative to the other and that no state bears utmost superiority. Indeed, Article 2, Subsection 7 of the UN Charter explicitly sets out the jurisdictional authority of states. The charter does not authorise any state to intervene on domestic matters, although the subsection does not prejudice the use of enforcement measure as spelt out in Chapter 7 (Graham & Wiessner 2012). From a realist point of view, it follows that no country possesses any permissible jurisdictional authority against the people of another nation. Hence, citizens of any nation have the sole power to determine the destiny of their land. Graham and Wiessner (2012) further assert that states that intervene often have imperialistic or self-serving motives as the pillar on which the decision for intervention is anchored.

Amid the arguments raised for or against intercession, I believe that no nation has absolute sovereignty. Hence, a principle to guide the decision to intervene should be developed in a manner that the responsibility of international actors to protect becomes the basic guideline for intervention where a nation’s apparatus is unable or is not willing to guarantee ardent protection of its citizens as witnessed in the case of the genocide in Rwanda—in such a case, functioning as a moral actor is necessary while deciding to engage in humanitarian intervention. However, cases of intervention regarding Kosovo and Iraq raise questions on this necessity.

States-Are They or Are They Not Moral Actors?

Intervention is deeply anchored in the historical development of global societies. People inclined to moral perspective justify war as the primary means of protecting people’s rights, coupled with encouraging them to uphold the law. Whether states are moral actors or not depends on the ethics of humanitarian intervention. In medieval ages, state rules were regarded as having the duty of enforcing some specific laws. The Spanish deployed this principle in the American conquest. Natural laws constitute one of the stipulations that guide the moral behaviour, which rulers have the mandate or the duty to enforce. Such laws dictate the various precepts that are justifiable by reason. The precepts bind all rational people. Therefore, any deviation from the principle by a state would call upon other states to intervene in the attempt to enforce the code to punish any act of immoral doing. The goal here is to defend the rights of innocent people.

The idea of common morality presents states as moral actors when they choose to intervene. However, from a realist school of thought, intervention is not right since it erodes the right of a nation to remain free from external inversion. Common morality presents people as having the right not ‘as members of a particular community, but as members of the human community in a common moral world’ (Krisch 2002, p. 329). The concept is founded on reason where it reflects on issues such as customs and laws. It assumes that states are rational and that they should function according to some prescribed standards. One of such standards is that besides the need for states to respect others, they must properly support each other. These two aspects present the idea of humanitarian intervention as morally justified since it upholds the principle of respect for human dignity and beneficence when a nation intervenes to address the domestic matters of another nation to eliminate civilian suffering.

The discussion above suggests that nations are moral actors since they highlight their obligation to help in eliminating suffering when they engage in humanitarian intervention. Chertoff (2013) supports this assertion by noting that in situations of oppression, states must function as moral actors when they uphold their duty and obligation to act through interventions. The concept of beneficence implies that it would be wrong for moral states to ignore mass injustices that occur within a nation. However, the selectiveness of nations in situations that require their involvement raises questions on their functioning as moral actors in humanitarian interventions. For example, Doyle (2017) supports the idea of non-intervention as advanced by philosophers such as J.S Mill.

J.S Mill suggests that nations act as immoral actors when they choose to engage in humanitarian interventions. According to Doyle (2017), the philosopher argues that intervention undermines the authenticity of any nation’s domestic struggles that aim to achieve liberty. The philosopher claims that even though any foreign intervention may guarantee the freedom to the oppressed, such people may not uphold it permanently. Amid the legitimacy of such viewpoints, it is apparent that such positions incredibly misjudge the humanitarian situational exigency. The atrocities committed in Rwanda supports this view. Vulnerable and defenceless Tutsis were deprived of their lives in 90 days. A nation that wishes to intervene in such a situation may be viewed as participating as a moral actor unless it has other self-benefiting motives of engaging in foreign nations’ humanitarian intervention. For example, in my view, a nation acts immorally when it selects situations in which to intervene based on its anticipated gains such as looting raw materials and/or shipping people home when it topples the oppressing regime.

States’ Use of Force Abroad in the Pursuit of Selfish Ends

The question of whether nations ever use force abroad in pursuit of selfish ends depends on the circumstance and individual cases of humanitarian interventions. The looming US interventions in Syria that seek to foster compliance with international law norms of prohibiting the utilisation of chemical weapon are attracting different reactions from both the international community and organisations that are charged with implementation and/or ensuring conformity to the international law around the globe. The EU and the US regard the intervention as necessary since they seek to punish the Syrian government for crimes against humanity for which international organisations and bodies such as international criminal courts are meant to castigate through legal processes (Kyl, Feith & Fonte 2013). However, a strike on Syria may also amount to the violation of a fundamental international law that upholds the sovereign rights of a given nation to remain free from foreign attacks, especially in the case where the UN Security Council does not authorise the use of force in Syria (Graham & Wiessner 2012). Should the strike occur, it would mean that states use force abroad in pursuit of selfish ends. Consequently, the situation would present the US and its allies as nations whose main agenda is to control the world, as opposed to bringing tranquillity to any war-stricken state.

Before the use of force in any state, an analysis of the validity of such intervention in the context of international law is important. In fact, according to Chertoff (2013), the use of force against another nation is unwelcome under the provisions of international law since it represents an effort to pursue justice through vigilantes. However, little doubt has existed in the deployment of chemical weapons against citizens over the past two years in Syria. Indeed, if the UN Security Council finds evidence that Syria used the chemical weapons, international law provisions on the universal declaration of human rights will have been violated. This finding may call for the international community to intervene and/or punish President Assad’s regime for such crimes against humanity. With the evidence of crimes and atrocities against innocent civilians, nations that seek to intervene in the Syrian crisis will not be using force to achieve selfish ends to eliminate the suffering of the oppressed.

From the above argument, it sounds imperative for the international community, including the US, to intervene to restore and/or enhance conformity to the international order on matters of respect for universal human rights. However, there are limitations to which strikes may be justified under the provisions of international law. For instance, the international criminal court whose mandate entails punishing crimes against humanity is guided by the Rome statute, which only holds individuals liable for crimes committed by regimes other than the entire nation (Graham & Wiessner 2012). Hence, specific persons who served in President Assad’s regime may be held liable for their use of chemical weapons against the citizens of Syria. This verdict only holds if the UN Security Council finds evidence for the use of such weapons. Hence, the unilateral deployment of force against Syria remains unjustified and in contradiction with the international laws on the freedom of sovereign states. Hence, any participating nation would be using force to achieve selfish ends since the intervention in Syria would amount to breaching its (Syria) sovereign rights of remaining free from external inversion.

From the above discussions, the international law’s legal foundation for justifying the launching of attacks on Syria seems questionable. Although the UN Security Council may not find evidence that Syria has violated the international law by attacking Turkey, hence prompting counter-attacks in self-defence, the global regulations, for instance, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) may be called into action when evidence is found on the use of a chemical weapon against the Syrian citizens by their government. In the future, humanitarian intervention and R2P may form the basis for making provisions for justifying interventions without necessarily seeking the authority of the UN Security Council (Craig 2013).

Conclusion

If a conclusion is made that a state acts for selfish reasons, does the engagement mean that the intervention is not humanitarian? Humanitarian interventions encompass international law customary norms, which may serve as an important exception in matters of prohibiting the deployment of force. Hence, if selfish gains drive the intervention, then it does not qualify as humanitarian since it does not focus on relieving the suffering of the oppressed people. This opinion suggests that an intervention cannot be deemed humanitarian if the motives are not purely meant to help the suffering people.

Reference List

Chertoff, M 2013, ‘The responsibility to contain: protecting sovereignty under international law’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 88, no. 1, pp.130-147.

Craig, M 2013, ‘International law and the US military strikes on Syria’, The Huffington post. Web.

Doyle, T 2017, ‘A moral argument for the mass defection of non-nuclear-weapon states from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime’, Global Governance, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 15-26.

Graham, M & Wiessner, S 2012, ‘Sovereignty, culture and international human rights law’, South Atlantic Quarterly, vol.110, no.2, pp. 403-427.

Krisch, N 2002, ‘Legality, morality and the dilemma of humanitarian intervention after Kosovo’, EJIL, vol.13, no.1, pp. 323-335.

Kyl, J, Feith, D & Fonte, J 2013, ‘The war of law’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 92, no. 4, pp.115-125.

Schrock-Jacobson, G 2012, ‘The violent consequences of the nation: nationalism and the initiation of the interstate war’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 825-852.

Spiro, P & Berkeley, J 2013, ‘ Sovereigntism’s twilight’, Journal of International Law, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 307-322.

Nietzsche’s 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 one’s 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 people’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 people’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s new morality (his “humanism”), and why Christianity is the arch-enemy

Nietzsche’s 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.

MacIntyre’s Diagnosis of Modern Moral Discourse and His Remedy

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

How MacIntyre’s 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 individual’s 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 Nietzsche’s criticism of modern morality?

The rise of autonomous moral agents supports Nietzsche’s idea that moral is highly subjective and is basically an imposition of one’s 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 one’s will to excel.

How is a moral agent’s a co-author in a narrative quest and how a narrative provides unity, moral particularity and intelligibility to an agent’s 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 people’s 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 MactIntyre’s Aristotelian account is supposed to be a superior answer to the modern moral chaos over Nietzsche’s 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, Nietzsche’s 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 Uncle’s 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.

MacIntyre’s diagnosis that we are using evaluative terms and ideas that have no stable shared meaning accurately characterizes this particular example as my interviewee’s 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.

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 client’s 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 client’s 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 Cohen’s 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 lawyer’s 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 doesn’t have the financial resources to support his needs in paying for the lawyer’s 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 lawyer’s services thru the government’s assistance because it is imparted in every lawyer’s 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 lawyer’s 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 lawyer’s 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 attorney’s 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).

Nietzsche’s 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 God’s 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. Plato’s Republic: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Print.

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

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 individual’s 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 one’s 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.

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 Nietzsche’s and Sartre’s 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 master’s and slave’s morality can be singled out.

Master’s 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 Sartre’s 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 ‘master’s’ morality. Sartre developed his view after Nietzsche’s 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 people’s 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.

Many Kinds of Politics: Aung San

Aung San provides a unique view of the meaning of politics and how its influences life at the individual and community level. Going through the text made me realize that the meaning of politics lacks precision, as it is defined uniquely by various people. I gathered that politics is unique for every community, and cannot have one overall definition. For instance, San (55) points out that politics in Myanmar was not a matter of race, education, religion, or language, but entailed similar cycles of the emergence of different gods, sorcerers, idols, gurus, prophecies, and kinds, which constantly changed the nature of their politics. Another essential concept gathered from San’s text is that politics are scientific. I had never scientifically imagined politics but agreed with the explanations of San.

The scientist’s view is based on two concepts, cause, and effect. I have experienced politics in my time, and realize that the shape they have taken is because of various forces that bring out the cause part, yielding certain results, accounting for effect. Despite this, these changes are always concerned with human affairs. The text also got me thinking of how politics is born in every individual, which is a combination of various changes that occur to someone since they are born. San (58) claimed “when human affairs become involved and complex, from the single person, household, race, belief or state, the level advances to higher and higher, thereby emerges the body politics. Growing up, I began as only a child, the learned to belong to a family, with beliefs, and being exposed to the external society further taught me about races, religion, and state, hence the idea of politics became real to me. However, it takes many people in one society to make politics meaningful. In his text, San (58) argues that “as humans multiply and their problems become too complex for coordination, leading to a breach of the order, the government has to emerge.” From this text, I can relate that people grow up in various settings with quite different views on all social aspects. People from different races tend to disagree and others behave unfairly toward others. In that context, the text helped me understand the role of government in society, which is mainly to bring law and order, among people with varying backgrounds.

For the government to adequately rule people, it all goes back to the idea of politics, where various leaders have to convince people to select them to adhere to their various concerns. This is always a challenge because of the diversity of human requirements. San (60) added that politics is guided by the idea of the state, where the superior class governs the lower classes, which is a clearer way to view politics. Thinking about it, it is always the wealthiest and most powerful people in society who get to rule in governments, and mostly the needs of the poor and powerless are considered the least.

Me and Mine: Democratic Socialism

The current world is filled with people who are always focused on progressing forward, not noticing that they might have missed the way somewhere and are headed in the wrong direction. Swearer (167) claims that “if we drive a car off the road into a ditch, we must back up and get onto the road so that we can go on driving.” This text suggests that people need to look back to where they went wrong in dealing with social concerns to acquire real and meaningful progress. The text made me think of the various ways that societies and individuals have lost their ways, from the ways of dhamma.

Some way people go astray is a lack of personal discipline in light of what is required of each person by the ways of God. This is evident when people have made disregarded religion as a central part of their lives, lowering the levels of morality and absolute truth. I believe that religion lays down essential backgrounds and roots to truth and morality, which has shaped many people over the centuries to live in peace and harmony. However, over the years, people have regarded themselves as higher than dhamma, and thus the basics of morality and truth slowly lost meaning and faded away, leaving a society filled with ruthless, uncaring, and self-centered people. In his text, Swearer (168) says, “Even the current problems of poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance of good health practices arise from our getting off track.” Thus, there is a lot to lose for people and communities that have lost their path, like the current generation we have today, and people have to return to God’s way to restore what has been lost.

I have always known that knowledge is useless unless it is applied in life. Swearer (168) claims that knowledge acquisition is simply getting ready for practice, and real benefits can only be gained upon its practice. The article triggered me to realize the importance of religion to society. By proving the truth and moral guidance, religion attempts to achieve peace for all and end all human concerns despite the many differences based on factors like race, ethnicity, social class, and culture.

Buddhist Genesis as a Narrative of Conflict Transformation

I found the reading to be fascinating, as it provides a detailed account of the development of human beings according to Buddhist teachings. I found it interesting to learn about celestial beings and their gradual moral degeneration, which led to conflict and violence. I think that the Buddha’s story of human origin is a creative way to provide an alternative narrative to the Hindu creation myth. I think that this story has the potential to inspire and provide interpretive possibilities to re-vitalize the messages of the Buddha in the context of violent conflicts in contemporary Thai society.

Solving disagreements is an essential aspect for people, and they need to learn how to do it without adverse costs. “The weight of the celestial beings’ narrative is meant to be placed in the conflicting heart of the two young Brahmins” (Satha-Anand 56). The Buddha is saying that the narrative of the celestial beings is meant to teach the young Brahmins about the importance of conflict resolution. The narrative shows how conflict can lead to violence and how important it is to have someone act as a mediator to prevent this. “The play with ‘birth’ and ‘origin,’ the ‘primary’ and the ‘best’ continues throughout the whole narrative” (Satha-Anand 57). The Buddha is using the story of the celestial beings to show how important it is to understand one’s origins and to emphasize the importance of being the best that one can be. Society can become a better place if everyone adhered to the person their creator made them be.

Works Cited

San, Aung. The Writings of General Aung San. Ed. Mya Han. Yangon: Yan Aung Books. Annexure 8: Many Kinds of Politics. Edited by Mya Han.Yangon: Yan Aung Books, 2015, pp. 55-69.

Satha-Anand, Suwanna. “Buddhist ‘Genesis’ as a Narrative of Conflict Transformation: A Re-reading of the Aggañña-sutta Diogenes.” vol. 60, no.1, 2013, pp. 54-61.

Swearer, Donald. Me and mine: selected essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadāsa. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989, pp. 167-193.

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 agent’s 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. Taylor’s 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 people’s 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 one’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 people’s 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 one’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 one’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 Christ’s 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

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 Nietzsche’s 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.

Nietzsche’s 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 master’s 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 individual’s 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 one’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s notion of slave morality and show why all people should follow this form of morality. The paper began by highlighting Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s opinion concerning them.

Works Cited

Kirby, Steve. “The Internalisation of Nietzsche’s 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.