Kant and Nietzsche Throughout History, Term Paper

In this "slave morality," as Nietzsche states, the values of the master morality, which are proper, and turned around, which undermines the natural order. He believes the natural order was that the strong continue to succeed at the cost of the weaker members of society. In response to their lowered status in the order, the caste used their hatred, revenge, and resentment to create morals that would weaken the master class. This "slave revolt," according to Nietzsche, turned acts that should be admired, such as force, into "evil" acts, while acts that went against the natural law, such as self-sacrifice and forgiveness, as "good." It created a set of moral values related to "good vs. evil" as opposed to "good vs. bad," understood aesthetically as opposed to morally (Nietzsche, Essay I & II).

According to Nietzsche, this lead to a false sense of moral responsibility, since the fear of those more powerful becomes internalized, and the conscience then places limits on the normal human desires. This defies the idea of autonomy, states the theory, since genuine autonomy can only come from freedom from all constraint on behavior, without the limit or supposed "moral obligation" (Nietzsche, Essay II).

Nietzsche's theory is in direct contrast to the idea of the Universal Good of Plato, and therefore against the ideas of Kant, as well. Whereas Plato and Kant believe in the good of the society as a rational for morality, Nietzsche believes these types of morals actually go against the good of the society, where the survival of the fittest is the ideal. Where Plato and Kant suppose that autonomic beings are moral beings, Nietzsche believes that these "slave morals" actually make autonomy impossible (Nietzsche, Essay II & III).

Nietzsche's argument does critique Kant and Plato effectively, in that his chronological account of the development of morality is based in history, to some extent. While his viewpoint is extreme, to say the least, it is a viewpoint that provides a rational argument against the idea of the Universal Law, or the greater good. For Nietzsche, it is precisely that universal good that is contrary to both the laws of nature, which have in fact been shown to be survival of the fittest, and human nature in general, which has also been shown to be true in the accounts of history.Kant and Nietzche both sought to find the origin of morality, and sought to understand the basis on which moral law is formed. While Kant's theory is based on assumptions of truths, Nietzsche's is based on the fundamental theories of human and natural evolution. This in and of its self provides more credibility to Nietzsche's argument. Additionally, while Kant's view of morality is optimistic, in that by following his argument, one is lead to believe humans are moral, autonomous creatures, Nietzsche's viewpoint is unfortunately more based in reality. if, as Kant proposes, humans act morally out of Duty, then the entire idea of free will is lost, since the moral act is no longer a choice made from moral rational, but a responsibility. Nietzsche accounts for this idea with his point that true autonomy can only be found by completely disregarding what is good for the society, and instead focusing on those choices we make for our own salvation. In short, while Kant's theory is a nice concept on paper, it is only valid in that media, whereas Nietzsche's theory, while grim, can be seen in reality on a daily basis, and thus, if far more compelling as a theory of current morality.

References

Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. 1785. University of Wales. 9 March 2005. http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/kant/kanta.htm

Nietzsche, Fredrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. 1887. Malaspina University College. 9 March 2005. http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/genealogytofc.htm.....