In the chapter "Beyond Good and Evil", Nietzsche criticizes the prevailing moral system of his time. Before I even begin to discuss Nietzsche's criticism, I would like to define "moral system". A moral system can be broken down into content, representation, and justification. The content is the substance on which moral judgments are made; the representation is the way in which the content is morally represented; and the justification is the rationale for representing the content in a given way. Moral systems vary based on the nature and interaction of these three essential components. For example, if we look at the general, national moral system of the United States during the Cold War, we might take the issue of "communism" as part of the content of this moral system. Its representation, as either "good" or "bad" would be "bad", and the justification might be that capitalism is a sounder economic/political policy.
[...] He describes instinct as "the good dumb will to 'believe', the lack of mistrust and patience [which are characteristics of ration] (Nietzsche 105). He describes an example of the prevalence of habit: "Our eye finds it more comfortable to respond to a given stimulus by reproducing once more an image that it has produced many times before, instead of registering what is different and new in an impression." He sees his argument for instinct over ration as part of an age-old dialogue "the question whether regarding the valuation of things instinct deserves more authority than rationality . [...]
[...] Thus the evaluation becomes one of evaluating his theory, and whether it offers an adequate solution to the problems that he perceives in theirs. Here, I find one main tension point. His position regarding the new morality is that the "free spirits" will have to rise above the herd. These individuals are stronger and more disciplined than the rest. But what is the source of their strength? Is it their clarity of thought? He explains the effect of opposing drives and values on the "obeyers" of society (Nietzsche 110) and on rulers like Caesar and Napoleon, whom he describes as only obeyers on a higher level, but what about the strong individuals? [...]
[...] He seems to think that certain individuals can rise above through ration and will power. Does this imply that they have a superior rational capability? If this is the case, then can we say that they escape all effects of the instincts in their transcendence of the herd mentality? This seems problematic, because on the most basic level, they are humans just like the other members of the herd. My final question is this: How will these individuals lead the herd to a new future? Does Nietzsche imply that they will develop systematic [...]
[...] He also criticizes Kant by emphasizing his idea that instinct prevails over ration: "Even apart from the value of such claims as 'there is a categorical imperative in he states in reference to Kant, "one can still always ask: what does such a claim tell us about the man who makes He rejects Kant's model, which appeals to a common morality based on will, and appeals to what he sees as a much more fundamental question when he brings morality to the level of man's nature. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
