Richard Taylor, an ethicist said, “Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are truly just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning (Ethics, Faith, and Reason 7).” Does this effect that religion is the only way to explain morality? Friedrich Nietzsche would argue that morality itself wasn’t necessary. Merce Cardus said, “Envy is – Nietzsche recognised – an essential part of life. Yet the lingering effects of Christianity generally teaches to feel ashamed of our envious feelings. They seem an indication of evil. So we hide them from ourselves and others. Yet there is nothing wrong with
…show more content…
It was an explanation of the meaning of life. If this explanation was accepted it would strike the very core of society and even the very core of our beings; it would affect every minute aspect of our lives; every action we take is linked to it. You can identify why it is imperative that we address this theory. Nietzsche’s explanation of the life’s meaning was that either it was your destiny to be the superman or you must serve him. He said, "Behold, I teach you the Overman. The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.” (Thus spoke Zarathustra 3). He is saying the Overman is the reason for our existence, and that belief in God or the supernatural is not simply unfounded, but pernicious. This view of life’s logical conclusion is that morality is irrelevant. If that statement seems overblown, look at what he said. Nietzsche said, “No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise” (Genealogy of Morals …show more content…
Maybe he wanted selfishness to be the boundary. If his ultimate goal was power, than weakness and benevolence would be an impediment. He said, ““What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome” (The Antichrist 1888). His boundary limits you to only do that which benefits you. Did he honestly believe life was a struggle for power, and that charity and altruism were a detriment? G.K. Chesterton points out that if Nietzsche honestly believed life was a struggle for power, he wouldn’t be showing the world. He wouldn’t be alerting the enemy to the battle. To tell others that life’s greatest virtue is selfishness is to be unselfish (Orthodoxy 67). Why would you give advice to someone on how to be egotistic? The act of giving the advice would be
It was an explanation of the meaning of life. If this explanation was accepted it would strike the very core of society and even the very core of our beings; it would affect every minute aspect of our lives; every action we take is linked to it. You can identify why it is imperative that we address this theory. Nietzsche’s explanation of the life’s meaning was that either it was your destiny to be the superman or you must serve him. He said, "Behold, I teach you the Overman. The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.” (Thus spoke Zarathustra 3). He is saying the Overman is the reason for our existence, and that belief in God or the supernatural is not simply unfounded, but pernicious. This view of life’s logical conclusion is that morality is irrelevant. If that statement seems overblown, look at what he said. Nietzsche said, “No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise” (Genealogy of Morals …show more content…
Maybe he wanted selfishness to be the boundary. If his ultimate goal was power, than weakness and benevolence would be an impediment. He said, ““What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome” (The Antichrist 1888). His boundary limits you to only do that which benefits you. Did he honestly believe life was a struggle for power, and that charity and altruism were a detriment? G.K. Chesterton points out that if Nietzsche honestly believed life was a struggle for power, he wouldn’t be showing the world. He wouldn’t be alerting the enemy to the battle. To tell others that life’s greatest virtue is selfishness is to be unselfish (Orthodoxy 67). Why would you give advice to someone on how to be egotistic? The act of giving the advice would be