Name:
Affiliation:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
KANT
A. Duty vs. Happiness
Kant sees the main conflict in ethics to be between the commands of duty and the
demands of happiness. Explain why he holds one above the other and discuss his
standard of morality of “unqualified moral worth”
Kant places the commands of duty above the demands of happiness because commands of
duty bring forth morality while demands of happiness are just for the purpose of self
gratification. For Kant, happiness and morality are two contrasting concepts that are often
seen as united which cause various problems within moral theory. Kant is opposed to
equating of rightness and happiness.
Kant by holding commands of duty as above demands of happiness seeks to distance
happiness from morality because according to him having the demands of happiness as the
basis for morality will leave moral principles up to dependent circumstances. This is because
happiness seems to be reliant on external conditions whereas morality should be independent
of any external circumstances. He argues that it is more coherent to separate morality and
happiness, thereby creating one objective notion that is morality with happiness as a
dependant notion.
It is for these reasons that Kant introduces the categorical imperative irrespective of whether
or not abiding by it directly increases happiness (Stone, 2007). Categorical imperative
formulations offer us laws to abide with, which will preserve human freedom and
independence.
Kant encourages the adoption of commands of duty because following this concept implies
use of our rational mind rather than following our desires.
He puts forward that through using our reason, the capacity that pulls directly against desires,
that we free ourselves and enable ourselves to be truly autonomous. There is no obvious
connection with happiness as all we have is a rationally based set of commands of duty by
which we are told we should act to promote freedom and morality
Kant's analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the thought that the only thing good
without qualification is a ‘good will’. This refers to a person one who only makes decisions
held to be morally worthy, with the moral considerations by themselves being the only
conclusive reasons to guide her behavior. The basic idea is that what makes a good person
good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way ‘determined’ by, or makes its
decisions on the basis of, the moral law.
Anything else short of this such as acting in a moral way because there are benefits to be
gained from it is what he terms as unqualified moral worth. This is because you are acting in
a moral way because there are perceived benefits and not because it it right by itself.
B. The Golden Rule Explain Kant’s view of the Golden Rule in terms of categorical vs.
hypothetical imperatives (Grounding, 37).
The golden rule is a morality of reciprocity which demands that one should treat others as one
would like to be treated and consequently one should not treat others in ways that one would
not like to be treated. It is a hypothetical command.
Hypothetical imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant desire whereas
categorical imperatives command unconditionally. Hypothetical imperatives only apply to
persons deriving a benefit from it whereas categorical imperatives are absolute and
unconditional requirements asserting their authority in all circumstances where regardless of
whether they are required and justified.
The Golden Rule implies that we do good because it is also benefits you personally. It
suggests that morality is a social construct in due course that is good for individuals and
societies to follow. This is a totally different view from categorical imperative as a
categorical imperative mandates action neither because it benefits us nor because it is for the
greater good but because it demands it. It neither flows from our desire nor from our
hedonistic nature it the honestly imagined maxim we follow and that mandates morally right
action.
According to Kant’s dichotomy of imperatives, The Golden Rule is a hypothetical imperative
because it only applies if you also want similar treatment. Where you do not mind being
treated in a certain way that would be considered immoral, applying the Golden Rule implies
that you are not bound to act in a moral way.
Kant is opposed to the Golden rule because according to him you cannot act as a way of
doing greater good later on instead you act what is good at the present moment. Kant holds
that morality must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you
are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply
to you.
He argues that the Golden rule being a hypothetical imperative, cannot persuade moral action
neither can it be regarded as the basis for moral judgment against others. This is because the
Golden rule relies too much on commands that are highly subjective. The subjectiveness of
the considerations of the Golden rule makes it inappropriate to form the ground for morality
because you cannot universalize it.
C. Love as Duty vs. Feeling. Discuss Kant’s view of love as a feeling versus love as
rational will in his view on love of the enemy. (Grounding, §I, p 12.)
Kant used the idea of love both to our enemies and to our neighbors as an example of
morality rooted in duty and obligation. He distinguishes actions based on obligation from
those based on inclination. Love as a feeling is an example of actions based on inclination
while love for enemies is a rational thing based on obligation. This is because with feelings
we are inclined to love because we have a disposition to do it because it makes us feel good
and we enjoy it.
However love for our enemies is an obligation we have to do because it is the right thing to
do. Kants understanding of love is that it should be a duty because love as an affection
cannot be commanded but if it is a duty, then we can command it. This kind of love is the
practical kind and not the pathological kind. It is based on will and not on sense, in principles
of action and not empathy and its only this practical love that can be commanded.
This practical love derives its moral basis from the maxim from which it is derived rather
than the benefits that could accrue to it. Application of the rational will rather than our desire
enables us to do that which we are not inclined to; which is loving our enemies.
II. NIETZSCHE
A. Moral Typology vs. the Science of Morals
What is the significance of the values “good and bad” transmuting into “good and evil”
(see §260, Beyond Good and Evil)? Discuss the attributes of each of these terms and
Nietzsche criticizes the notion of morals as absolutes. The terms ‘good and evil’ and ‘slave
morality’ refer to this absolutist morality, and Nietzsche contrasts the values of ‘good and
evil’ with the values of ‘good and bad’ or ‘master morality’. Things are ‘good’ or ‘bad’
according to a particular perspective that is subjective
Good and evil are characterized as slave morality whereas good and bad morality is referred
to as master morality. Good and bad morality originates from the aristocratic rule where
wealth, poverty and health were seen as good and poverty and despair of the ruled class was
seen as bad.
The slave morality is attributed to Judaism especially s practiced by priests who saw their self
subjected humility and self denial as good. Those who were neither healthy nor free came to
resent the people in positions of power and identified them as "evil." They identified
themselves being weak, sick, and poor as "good."
This kind of morality contrasts the earlier form of morality. It is much deeper and refined and
is more appealing than the self confidence of the masters. However it renders people
mediocre as it leads them to be driven by pity and compassion rather than conquest and risk.
This is because it focuses the attention on others and on afterlife distracting people from the
present. .
Nietzsche typifies the majority of humanity as "weak" because they lack the power to direct
their aggressive instincts outward. People who cannot turn their aggression outward turn this
aggression inward and develop resentment toward those who oppress them. Those who lack
power in this life are convinced that they will have power in another life in a heaven created
to reward them for their self denial. Nietzsche thinks we should try to overcome this kind of
weakness by trying to grow strong.
B. How is nihilism related to both religion and science for Nietzsche?
Nihilism can be defined as the absence of the highest values. According to Nietzsche religion
is directly opposite of nihilism as religion calls upon people to acquire the highest possible
values that a particular religion has set. He acknowledged that science is moving away from
religious ideals and embracing nihilism. When he declared God is dead and we killed him, he
was recognizing that moving towards scientific thinking displaces faith. Thus religion is
opposed to nihilism whereas science promotes nihilism. However that is not to say that
science is opposed to religion, he instead sees it as a new religion.
He posited that the modern developments in science and the mounting secularization of
European society had effectively 'killed' God, who had served as the basis for meaning and
value in most people. It had also destroyed the faith of other religion all over the world and as
a result it had driven people to nihilism. This destruction of faith leads to absolute nihilism
which is the belief that nothing has any inherent importance and that life lacks purpose.
He states that the Christian moral doctrine provides people with fundamental value and a
basis for objective knowledge. Nietzsche argues that people need something to give meaning
to their lives and thus adopting nihilism will see people trying to replace the religious ideals
that they previously held with something else. He predicted that the religious ideals will be
replaced by values of enlighten and scientific ideals.
However he condemned the religion especially Christianity as is practiced. Nietzsche claimed
that the Christian faith as practiced was not a proper representation of Jesus' teachings, as it
forced people merely to believe in the way of Jesus but not to act as Jesus did. He condemned
institutionalized Christianity for emphasizing a morality of pity which assumes an inherent
illness in society.
C. Is nihilism evil per Nietzsche? Discuss Nietzsche’s solution to nihilism.
Nietzsche saw nihilism as removing meaning from the world which was not necessarily evil
but he did not agree with the consequences of moving towards such a world. The major
source of nihilism was suggested to be the death of God and the assumption that human life
has meaning only if these beliefs are upheld.
If belief in God as the basis, ground and goal of all reality is dead, the world loses of its
obligatory and binding desire to stick by certain values. When this happens nothing more
remains to which man can cling and by which he can acquit himself with and this begets
despair.
Nietzsche puts forward that nihilism is evil because when people are deprived of meaning in
their lives they will seek to fill the void with power. This is what leads to evil in the world as
each person seeks to gratify themselves and fulfill their innate desires. He argues that
nihilism is what drove the World Wars and is society moves towards nihilism, there will be
greater evil.
Therefore in constructing a world where objective knowledge is possible, Christianity is a
solution to a primal form of nihilism; the despair of meaninglessness. Nietzsche suggested
that Christianity if practiced as Jesus taught would restore basic values in people and prevent
them from going towards nihilism.
Another solution is passive nihilism which he advocates extrication of oneself of will and
desires in order to reduce suffering. This is a concept borrowed from Schopenhauer's
doctrine, which Nietzsche also refers to as Western Buddhism
According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true
foundation upon which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also
hasten its ultimate departure. By this one can say that Nietzsche saw nihilism as a solution to
itself.
Works Cited
Stone, K. (2007, September 26). Duty is Proir to Happinness. Retrieved May 17, 2014, from
KemStone: http//:www.kemstone.com/kantethics.html