Right off the get go one can see these two philosopher's thoughts on morality appose one another, but their differences goes far beyond a petty disagreement over morality. The nature of their conflict goes much deeper, past a simple debate over what is good and what is evil. Together these two thinkers represent both sides of an argument over the very nature of morality. Kant affirms that morality is something universal, a metaphysical ideal completely separated from the world of experience through the use of reason. Nietzsche attacks not only Kant's morality but the very ground Kant founds his morality in, challenging not only the purpose of morality, but the creditability of rationality and even its basis in causality.
[...] Nietzsche asked the question under what conditions did man invent the values of good and evil? In his ontological study of good and evil he traces back the forces that shaped it, concluding that there are two primary moralities that have been in conflict. Master morality or the morality of the historic rulers and those in power and slave morality, that of the oppressed majority. This conflict has not only shaped morality but the very nature of how we view our world. [...]
[...] The most painful blow Nietzsche strikes against Kant's metaphysics are his thoughts on causality. Kant believes that perception is founded in both the experience of an external object and a priori knowledge; a priori knowledge being, the concepts of space, time, and causality. He asserts that those ideas must first be in place before we can experience the external world. Nietzsche as usually does not directly attack this theory but within the implications of his work lays a bomb that could very well rock the foundation of Kant's metaphysics. [...]
[...] The problem plaguing Kant along with all moral theorists was that of the existence of multiply morality existing simultaneously. Kant demanded that a universal morality must exist. The reason he believed for all these morality to exist together today was because of a lack of rationality within morality. In order for morality to become universal it had to be grounded in something universal, something outside of experience, something beyond corruption and debate, enter rationality. By placing basing his moral framework upon rationality he eliminated all of these problems. [...]
[...] The worse part is that just as one could not get into heaven by simply doing good deeds but they had to do those deeds out of a love to god, one cannot be moral according to Kant by simply following his morality. One must be moral out of duty to that moral law. This feeling of debt and duty to a higher ideal is exactly the thing Nietzsche despises. We use these ideals to punish ourselves; to crush our will under them. [...]
[...] However within this death of god, modern morality and most other things we value, there is still hope. There is endless opportunity in nothingness. In fact anything is possible in a world in which nothing is true. However it takes a strong will to shape that nothingness into something of value for oneself. Nietzsche did not think everyone was capable truly unleashing their will to power and creating meaning in their own life, but for those who could a life of true meaning awaited them. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
