In an era in which the irrational is widely accepted and even embraced -- through the thought of Freud, Kierkegaard, and others in addition to Nietzsche himself -- Kant's confidence in the a priori categories of reason as self-evident universal organizing principles seems innocent at best. Finally, in a society that jealously protects the perspective of the individual, Kant's appeal to universal or even "categorical" patterns of thought and morality is difficult to integrate into everyday life. If society reserves judgment on moral questions, then how can we ascribe objective force to our own maxims for a just life? Perhaps ironically, the best way to live under such circumstances is to follow Kant under our own auspices and apply his imperative as universally applicable to our own lives, while granting the Nietzschean inapplicability of...
As an individual, I can always choose to wrestle with the Kantian imperative in my own life, and thus live with some degree of self-consistency and, from my perspective, "reason." As long as I organically embrace it in all its hypothetical nature ("as if"), it has the potential to generate authenticity -- to become, as Nietzsche would say, "the heaviest thing."
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
ethical theory hinges on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers since Aristotle have debated the meaning of morality for thousands of years. The idea that everyone has an individual opinion of right vs. wrong equates to moral relativism. Are morals relative or absolute? Are actions inherently good or bad, regardless of their consequences? Or are consequences the summon bonum? And is an action good or right because of
Philosophy? When one attends a post-secondary institution, one of the most challenging things is to find your place, both scholarly and intellectually. That is, who am I supposed to be? What do I want to be? What is my passion in academia? Moreover, ultimately, what contribution do I wish to make within the scholarly community? With that said, then, this brings me to how I found philosophy as an interest
Aristotle, happiness and pleasure was moderation and a middle action between two vices. . So, for example, modesty would be a virtue as it comes between two extremes or vices; egotism and low self-esteem. Another example would be working sensibly. The two vices of working would be overworking and laziness. The middle option would be working sensibly. This, according to Aristotle, is the correct choice of action. He said
Nietzsche pressed humanity to realize that God is an invention of human creativity, and that we can no longer accept the idea of a divine being outside of ourselves. This was the center of his anthropocentric ideas. Feuerbach and Marx both held beliefs that agreed with Nietzsche (Jeff 19). Marx even referred to religion as the opium of the people. Kant's ideas of reason come back to haunt him
However, when it comes to health-related issues, I do not believe that subjective personal impressions and feelings can influence one's ethical decision-making. The evidence is clear that smoking is harmful to the smoker, and also to the person who inhales second-hand smoke. Additionally, we were in my parents' home. I know that they have hard and fast rules about smoking on their property. My friend took a different point-of-view: he acquiesced
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now