Nietzsche’s criticism of contemporary moral ideas

Nietzsche is a passionate critic of conventional morality and this criticism can be observed on various levels. The basic level involves an attack on to claims made by morality regarding its own status.  The first claim is that morality is position that can be objectively justified and provide objective truths regarding what every person should do (Nietzsche, 186). The second claim involves the notion that everyone is responsible for their actions since they have free will.  His position is that the claims about free will and objectivity are not true.  Instead, he says that “We do not object to a judgment just because it is false  ... The question is rather to what extent the judgment furthers life  ...” (Nietzsche, 4). The indication in this argument is that Nietzsche’s is really driven by an evaluative agenda; here he views morality as generally a bad thing. He thinks it is most dangerous since it does not enhance life but instead hinders the possibility human’s achievement of the most progressive forms of life.  He calls it “the highest power and splendor of the human type” (Nietzsche, 6).

 The people who are able to realize this advanced life are “higher types” or “free spirits”.  Therefore, Nietzsche claims that “to demand one morality for all is precisely to encroach upon the higher sort of human beings” (Nietzsche, 228). Moreover, he views morality as one major thing that prevents the rise and evolution of great and creative men.  His rejection of morality is based on the perception that moral ideas are ‘disvaluable’ which is to a bad thing.  This is because it hinders people who can live the most advanced life from doing so.

The argument by Nietzsche attribute morality that is widespread in European culture as being obtained from Christianity, a religion that has determined the ethical outlook In Europe for a long time that its moral values have been accepted as the correct ones. He perceives that , even if God was absent , so that people no longer relate the justification of morality to religious authority ,  these oral values are so dominant people are blinded to the notion that other values may be present.  He says that “morality defends itself with all strengths against such ‘possibilities’ and inflexibly says “I am morality itself, and nothing else is (Nietzsche, 202).  As a result, moral values are accepted as given instead of personal goals. Therefore, Nietzsche concludes that “Morality today is herd animal morality” (Nietzsche, 202).  He suggests that higher moralities can and should be attained.  

The challenge presented in Nietzsche views can be summarized in various ways. To begin with, Morality demands that a person comply with its ideals, values and duties regardless of whether conflict will arise with what is personally good for them. It assumes that it can apply equally to everybody; hence, a person cannot escape it when such conflict arises.  On that note, morality demands the higher kinds to conform to its requirements irrespective of whether such actions will enable them to express their real selves.   Conformation to morality can hinder a person from achieving their best excellences.  Hence, it requires that these kinds should behave in a manner that hinders their realization of the uppermost excellences that indicates their success. In regards to values, Nietzsche argument is that “there are altogether no moral facts” (Acampora, 59). In addition, he argues that there is an agreement between moral judgments with religious judgment in accepting realities that cannot be considered realities. He sees the world as having no value, and if any exists, it has been imposed on it by human beings.   He further calls for a review of such moral values since the value placed on such values should be question first.

  The claim of absence of moral values in the world shows that Nietzsche does not accept moral realism, a perception that values (including moral values) consist of a reality that is not determined by the opinion and preferences of man about them.  This is a denial of moral facts.  Human should not create morality, but morality is not supposed to depend on the thoughts and wants of human beings. Rather, facts that are claimed to belong to morality, like self-sacrifice being good and cruelties being evil do not exist independently of how human believes about them (Acampora, 61).   Hence, he considers the assumed moral facts as not facts but fictions which are in reality malicious.  The claims aligns with what some people believe to be valuable , in that values are nothing beyond what is really valued and or what matters.  The perceived values are relative to the person evaluating them. Each person would have their values that generally consist of what they value. Generally, value results from stable desires or wants and which in a way are essential to the individual (Acampora, 61). Nonetheless, Nietzsche argues that the things that are valued by individuals have actually b value.

Nietzsche views on morality especially in regard to its Christianity association are not true since he seems not have understood the actual history and philosophy of the religion.  His argument and analysis of moral values as determined by Christianity does not engage with the actual history.  He does not peg his argument on the understanding of the origin of Christian moral values. Rather, he pegs it on the likely way that the religion got its values. The argument does not even aim at disapproving Christianity but rather, he claims that these moral values should be assessed in terms of whether they are beneficial to humanity in enabling creative and great men to achieve the highest degree of excellence.  His devoted skepticism on moral values in the society that is dominated by Christianity does not show historical inaccuracies.  

Moreover, he does to engage with Christianity’s real philosophy and does not consider argument that out there that is favorable to Christianity.  His concentration is based on what Christians practice and the good reason related to it but not what the non-believers do.  In addition, he only assigns value related power some people he sees as worthy.  He deviates from the idea that moral philosophy should be universal and involve all people in an equal manner.  Moreover, his argument on moral theory does not indicate what people should specifically do including amidst immorality.  He should have argued that value is an inherent aspect in human mind, and thus can only results from human creation. Moral value cannot exist outside a man. The human capacities that can bring about moral value are capacities that are fundamental to human only.

Works cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Nietzsche: on the genealogy of morality and other writings. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Original Edition. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017

Leiter, Brian. "Nietzsche and the morality critics." Nietzsche (2001).