Kant and Nietzsche on ethics

Kant and Nietzsche are two of the most influential philosopher that sought to create a better explanation of what is ethical and what drives people to make ethical or immoral decisions. While their arguments do raise valid points on the topic of ethics, Nietzsche’s philosophies tend to be more convincing not only because they are based on rational arguments but also because they answer most of the questions that Kant’s ideologies are unable to. Although Kant, to some extent, does elaborate in what drives people to be ethical, applying these ideologies in a social setting is difficult as his arguments regarding moral laws are based on principles that contain no contradictions whatsoever. Since human actions are always tend to contradict one another, the ethics that Kant talks about is unachievable thus making his arguments difficult to implement in the real world.

Most of the arguments that Kant makes in support for the universal law he advocates for in Kantian ethics either gives wrong answers or the solution provided raises more questions about what is ethical instead of actually helping people to discern right from wrong. A good example is the hypothetical scenario that Kant proposes as an example of a society made up of good morals (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). In his argument, Kant suggests that morality can be seen in a society where everyone plays a part in helping the poor. Although helping others is ethical, Kant presents it in a way to suggest that everyone ought to help the poor as it is the moral thing to do. However, since Kant’s arguments are designed to reach an outcome where there are no contradictions, his argument becomes irrelevant when trying to implement the ideas he shares. If, for example, everyone played their part and helped the poor, it would then mean that, after a specific period of time, there will be no more poor people left to help (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). The universal act of helping the poor would therefore make beneficence impossible and therefore helping the poor would become immoral as it no longer serves any purpose in society.

In addition, Kant’s ideologies regarding ethics put human beings at a constant battle between their desires and their reasoning. According to cant, being ethical means suppressing personal desires and only acting on ideas and actions that have been reasoned out and decisions made to determine the morality of an act before engaging in it (Brusotti & Siemens, 2017). It is however difficult for human beings to suppress all desires they have ad only act on reasoning because the desires are also part of how people interact with one another as well as the world around them. Since Kant does not clearly discuss how human beings can go about resolving the conflict brought about by desire and reasoning, his ideologies on ethics tend to be vague and unsatisfactory as they do not present human beings with enough reasons to engage in moral acts.

The limitations in Kant’s ideologies are brought about by his approach of presenting ideas based on a fictional society or a society that he wishes would exist if people followed his teachings (Somi, 2010). Instead of focusing his arguments on what actually happens in the real world, Kant creates a hypothetical scenario and this makes it difficult to determine what actions can be implemented in the real world. Kant ideology creates universal laws that are impossible to implement in society especially because he presents morals as something that not only guides the way people interact with one another but also restricts them to a specific set of acceptable behaviors (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). His argument is difficult to act on as it requires one to abandon all personal desires and only act on those that have been reasoned out as this, according to Kant, is the only way to engage in an ethical manner.

Unlike Kant who argued in the lines of what ought to happen in society for people to be considered moral, Nietzsche had a more compelling argument as his ideologies helped to explain and interpret things that were already happening in society. Nietzsche’s ideologies were practical and his argument on what was ethical helped to draw conclusions that could help resolve problems that exist in the real world and not a fictional society as was the case with Kant (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). In his discussions about ethics, Nietzsche sought to highlight the confusion that existed due to beliefs related to Christianity and Kantian ethics. According to Nietzsche, the ethical systems used in society had two major limitations. Firstly, the arguments made metaphysical claims regarding the nature of humanity. Accepting these claims was also mandatory as it was the only way to give the systems normative force (Kevin, 2003). Secondly, the ethical systems used would often benefit some people in society and act as inconveniences to others thereby making them ill-suited to determine what was ethical and what was immoral in society.

Although both Kant and Nietzsche agreed on the concept of autonomy and the impact it has on the decisions we make, Nietzsche differed from Kant as he rejected Kant’s ideology that valuing our own autonomy was on condition that we respect the autonomy of other people as well. Nietzsche further disagrees with Kant in regards to his argument on reason and desire (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). According to Kant, reason differs from desire because reason allows for one to step back from a situation, reevaluate the appropriate cause of action and makes an independent decision that help in choosing what is ethical from what is not. Nietzsche however disagrees with this notion as he believes that the self is made up of social structures comprising of everything that drives and motivates people (Brusotti & Siemens, 2017). According to Nietzsche, it is not that people use reason to determine the most appropriate cause of action and go against one’s drive but rather that alternative drives can take dominance over others and this result to people engaging in ethical acts.  People are therefore unable to use reason to control their desires as Kant suggests because the alternative actions that the self engages in results from the strongest drive asserting its dominance.

An argument can be made that Nietzsche’s argument about the dominant drive requires recognition of a self capable of stepping back as suggested by Kant. While the two do share some similarities in their arguments, Nietzsche’s argument about the self only adds on to his belief that people must first view themselves as unified agents. Unlike Kant however, the self or unified agent that Nietzsche talks about is influenced by its drives when differentiating right from wrong unlike in Kant’s argument where reason is used to determine if something is ethical or not. Nietzsche gives a more convincing argument than Kant because his arguments about ethics help in determining whether something is right or wrong while Kant mostly discusses possible outcomes of a hypothetical society instead of addressing what actually takes place in society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Brusotti, M., &  Siemens, H. (2017). Nietzsche's engagements with Kant and the Kantian legacy.             Vol. I. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Constâncio, J., & Bailey, T. (2017). Nietzsche's engagements with Kant and the Kantian legacy. Vol. II. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Kevin R, (2003) “Nietzsche’s critiques: The Kantian foundation of his thought” University of       Notre Dame, retrieved from, https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/nietzsche-s-critiques-the-kantian- foundations-of-his-thought/

Somi A, (2010) “A comparative study of Kant and Nietzsche concerning the role of science in     political theory” St Andrew Research Repository, retrieved from, https://research-    repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/980