Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
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.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.