A Comparison of Medina and Nietzsche’s Philosophy
The philosophies of Jose Medina and Friedrich Nietzsche differ in the sense that Medina focuses on the epistemic injustice while Nietzsche focuses on deconstructing morality. Medina explores injustice in society with the goal of finding factors that contribute to its existence. In essence, the philosopher believes morality to be a noble human virtue, and a factor that can be used to eliminate social injustices. However, due to social beliefs that alter the perspectives of oppressors and the oppressed, it becomes difficult to champion for morality. In the case of Friedrich Nietzsche, he argues that morality is a questionable human virtue that has no objective place in reality. Friedrich Nietzsche considers morality to be a societal constructions that focuses on achieving ideals believe to be “noble” by the higher class at the expense of those at the bottom of the class. More importantly, he points out that Morality ignores the relatives experiences and perspectives which inform the reality of individuals. It chooses to create one form of reality for the whole society, a factor that contribute to most of the social shortcomings of society. Therefore, …show more content…
This is not surprising since we are dealing with an epistemic injustice that is grounded in a comparative social injustice” (66). The author is using events presented in the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” to show how oppression is perpetuated by social belief systems. In “On the Genealogy of Morality,” Nietzsche notes that “The active, the attacking, encroaching human, is still located a hundred paces nearer to justice than the reactive one” (49). Nietzsche is exploring the origins of morality to show that it has nothing to do with the noble ideals it represents. In essence, the author is of the opinion that it promotes injustices since individuals are forced to live with an aspect that is not entirely their
The philosophies of Jose Medina and Friedrich Nietzsche differ in the sense that Medina focuses on the epistemic injustice while Nietzsche focuses on deconstructing morality. Medina explores injustice in society with the goal of finding factors that contribute to its existence. In essence, the philosopher believes morality to be a noble human virtue, and a factor that can be used to eliminate social injustices. However, due to social beliefs that alter the perspectives of oppressors and the oppressed, it becomes difficult to champion for morality. In the case of Friedrich Nietzsche, he argues that morality is a questionable human virtue that has no objective place in reality. Friedrich Nietzsche considers morality to be a societal constructions that focuses on achieving ideals believe to be “noble” by the higher class at the expense of those at the bottom of the class. More importantly, he points out that Morality ignores the relatives experiences and perspectives which inform the reality of individuals. It chooses to create one form of reality for the whole society, a factor that contribute to most of the social shortcomings of society. Therefore, …show more content…
This is not surprising since we are dealing with an epistemic injustice that is grounded in a comparative social injustice” (66). The author is using events presented in the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” to show how oppression is perpetuated by social belief systems. In “On the Genealogy of Morality,” Nietzsche notes that “The active, the attacking, encroaching human, is still located a hundred paces nearer to justice than the reactive one” (49). Nietzsche is exploring the origins of morality to show that it has nothing to do with the noble ideals it represents. In essence, the author is of the opinion that it promotes injustices since individuals are forced to live with an aspect that is not entirely their