Are Nietzsche's criticisms of morality convincing Essay

Are Nietzsche's criticisms of morality convincing - Essay Example According to him they were a dominant class that he calls â€Å"masters† who created a moral code that the subordinates in the society had to follow (Danto, 1994). Master morality is the morality of the strong willed. To those who practice master morality, the basic principle is that what is good is helpful and that which is bad is harmful. In the ancient times, the value or otherwise of an action was determined by its consequences. This basically implies that morality does not exist per se but rather, there are only moral interpretations of situations and occurrences. According to Nietzsche, the essence of morality is nobility. For the strong willed in the society that which is good is noble and powerful while the bad is weak, timid and cowardly. For the Master morality, the defining factor is the idea of what is good and later the nature of bad is defined as that which is not good. In master morality, open mindedness courage and an accurate sense of self worth are attributes that are highly valued. Hence, masters are creators of morality and master morality is self-determinant (Hooker, 2000). Master morality embodies living life to the fullest a completely natural human functioning. It has little concern for the outside and as such, lives a life free from external restrictions. Masters affirm themselves from the onset and then enforce their morality to everyone below them. Essentially, masters are more concerned about that which their self deems right. The other issues that are nonrelated are considered secondary and insignificant. In a way, the masters define what they want and everything else that is not aligned to their perspective and beliefs is non consequential. The ideals of the society and other people do not affect their morality. In fact, the superior people are not afraid to express their will to power. They are determined to let their self serving morality be the one that the others follow. Master morality does not let the will of the herds to determine their lifestyle and moral direction. On the contrary, these superior people consider the values of other people to be of little or no significance and their sole objective is to advance their self interests. Those who follow master morality subscribe to their self defined rules and are not bound by the values of the society or institutions. Thus, it is imperative that the masters craft their own reality and morality. Nietzsche argues that those who follow the master morality are the ones who determine the development of human race to higher levels. Even from the historical background, men who have had the greatest impact in the history of mankind are the strong-willed. The timid and weak simply do not have the capacity to make things happen. Transformation and authority requires a higher degree of self worth and belief in order to convince the followers (Ridley, 1998). Suffice to say, Nietzsche paints those who follow master morality as stiff necked people with a high sense of self imposed supremacy. They do not have room for reason as they deem their ideas to be the most superior of all. The masters are close minded and they do not have room to change their set beliefs. He further argues that these superior people do not even belief that new knowledge can make them revise their previous positions. Morality for the masters is a personal issue rather than a communal beliefs system. This means that those who practice

Utilitarianism is not so much a political philosophy, as a political Essay

Utilitarianism is not so much a political philosophy, as a political technique. Discuss - Essay Example However, the structure of the notion does not necessarily appear in this manner depending on the claim but the context is definitely similar. In multiple occasions, leaders apply utilitarianism in political initiatives making it appear as a political philosophy in most of these cases, depending on the particular initiatives and the dissimilar outcomes. Moreover, sometimes it is due to the manner that these leaders relate utilitarianism to achieve their goals. Generally, in every basis, utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which means that the evaluation of an action is relative to its consequences, whether in politics, religion or science. In most situations relative to politics, utilitarianism comes out as egoism especially since the consequences are of more significance than the actions. However, this notion also applies in distinguishing utilitarianism from egoism; typically, the scope and relevance of the consequences. Utilitarianism principles focus on maximizing the overall good, a core reason why it applies in politics; however, the best way to exploit this is considering both individual good and that of o thers (Mill 2002, 64). Multiple philosophers made vast contributions to utilitarianism; however, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill stand out because of their arguments’ context in an effort to make people understand utilitarianism as a form of ethics theory (Crisp 1997, 15&Bentham 1990, 8). They were hedonists about value through the identification of good with pleasure; moreover, they encouraged people to maximize the good by bringing about the greatest amount of good for the biggest number of people possible. An initiative that citizens expect from politicians; moreover, it should be the general basis of most political proprietors. Conversely, in a political philosophy stand point, distinguishing utilitarianism also takes place through independence