Is Nietzsche's view of morality better for us than Kant's?

Essay by gap4ever012University, Bachelor's June 2004

download word file, 4 pages 4.5 1 reviews

Downloaded 120 times

In the book "On the Genealogy of Morals," the philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche presents an argument as to a view of his opinion on morality. Nietzsche states that he enjoys bringing pain and suffering to others. Nietzsche states that the origins of guilt and consciousness come from the "creditors" and "debtors." Nietzsche also debates that the more powerful a community becomes, the less they need to punish criminals. On the other hand, in the book "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals," by Immanuel Kant, he states that being good should be the purpose of life. Kant says that if one is happy, he is more likely to fulfill his duty, which is to do good deeds. Kant's view of morality is better for us than Nietzsche's argument.

Nietzsche remarks "To the extent that to make suffer was in the highest degree pleasurable, to the extent that the injured party exchanged for the loss he had sustained including the displeasure caused by loss, an extraordinary counterbalancing pleasure: that of making suffer - a genuine festival..."

(Nietzsche, 65). Nietzsche says that making others suffer was considered a great joy; he calls it a "festival," that would balance out an unpaid debt. We find the origins of conscience, guilt, and duty in the festiveness of cruelty. To Nietzsche, people were punished simply because it was fun to punish people. If you fail to keep your promise to me, at least I get the pleasure of beating you up. This is the original association of "guilt" with "debt," to Nietzsche. Guilt was a debt to be paid: if you make a promise, you are in debt to me. If you fail to keep your promise, you must pay off the debt in some other way. If that "other way" is pouching...