Idean Ethics And Kantian Ethics, By Immanuel Kant

1540 Words 7 Pages
Immanuel Kant created Kantian ethics, an example of deontological moral theory which places focus on the morality of the action itself, rather than the morality of the consequences of the actions, or the morality of the person who committed the actions. Kant believed in the existence of an inherent good will within humans that would lead them to make moral and just decisions. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, on the other hand, completely rejects the idea of an inherent goodness and instead places focus on the idea that humans have a natural instinct to survive and be victorious and that the victors of social, economic, and political battles would determine what is good and bad. Nietzsche 's criticism of Kant centers on its acceptance of duty as …show more content…
For example, the goodness of of intelligence will depend on whether or not the person decides to use their intelligence to destroy the Earth or find the cure for cancer, therefore intelligence could not be considered the highest good. Happiness could not be considered the highest good, because for one person happiness might entail the death of one person and without the death of that one person, happiness might never be achieved. The only thing that is intrinsically good in itself and is good unconditionally without any external influences is a good-will. Kant also believed that certain actions were indefinitely prohibited such as murder and theft, but for other actions, regardless of the outcome, the morality of them depended on whether or not a duty was fulfilled, in accordance with the deontological moral theory. These duties however, could not be just any duties, but they must be derived from imperatives. He also believed that humans, when free to live autonomously will produce an internal will to be morally good. However, humans, whom he believes to be rational beings, are also subject to impulses that will lead them to commit irrational …show more content…
Nietzsche, however, believed that common laws followed by the majority had more to do with following one’s conscience. Rather than Kant who believes people to have an inherent good will, Nietzsche subscribes humans to a more primitive state of nature where people have an instinctive nature to cause suffering which originated from the natures of the relationships between buyer and seller and creditor and debtor. The suppression of such natures in order to assimilate to what was considered a more civilized way of life lead to the creation of guilt and conscience. The internalization of the need to portray dominance and power through the suffering of others caused the need for superiority to be displayed in another manner, which manifested itself through the suffering of oneself. Nietzsche 's conception of a bad conscience goes along the lines of feeling repentant and responsible for the outcome, but disregard that the outcome is of any moral relevance to oneself and inherently wrong. Guilt, on the other hand, would manifest from feelings of not only one being morally responsible for one’s actions, but for the character flaws that dictated those actions as well. Kant, however, believes that the inherent good will is the only good in itself, and the morality of all

Related Documents