Nietzsche's Ascetic Ideal

In his book, Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche examines the origins of Good and Evil. He postures that these two concepts are derived from language, rather than essential morality. He argues that people label things as good or evil based upon their personal feelings and position of privilege. Douglas Smith translated this edition of Genealogy of Morals into English, but he also included explanations of some of Nietzsche’s key concepts. According to Smith, “A central concept in Nietzsche’s argument, ressentiment is the essence of slave morality, a purely reactive mode of feeling which simply negates the active and spontaneous affirmation of values on the part of the nobility” (142). Ressentiment stems from the oppressed party’s jealousy. The oppressed do not accept that it is bad that they do not have the luxuries and rights that the nobility posses. Instead, the oppressed use ressentiment, flip the moral spectrum, and declare that those luxuries are evil.

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

Nietzsche introduces the initial concepts of what is good to be determined by those who have benefitted from unegoistical

In a society where the concept of ‘self’ is removed and ‘selflessness’ is the moral good, the pursuit and attainment of personal happiness is evil. Individuals seeking happiness live a tortured existence; filled with persecution and guilt. “We, Equality 7-2521, were not happy in those years in the Home of the Students. It was not that the learning was too hard for us. It was that the learning was too easy. This is a great sin, to be born with a head which is too quick. It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them. The Teachers told us so, and they frowned when they looked upon us.” (Rand 4) Equality 7-2521 struggles with the fact that he has attributes that set him aside from the rest of the collective. In a society of equals, there

I can agree with the idea that basing actions on morals can help to ensure that people are not being irrational in their thought processes and that people’s needs are more likely put ahead of individual wants. If morals were not involved, then decisions would most likely be made depending on what would advance the position of that person the most or on other selfish wants. At the same time, without morals being looked at, many lives could be lost because there is no clear way to judge things and come up with an agreement. Without morals, it can be extremely tough to figure out right from wrong and how a group or individual should act.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

There is a primary goal that every individual wants to achieve; however, along with the way, many overlook the moral values needed to accomplish these set goals. Alfie Kohn affiliated this in his essay “How Not to Get into College”, because of the fact that students “were joining clubs without enthusiasm because they thought membership would look impressive. They were ignoring - or perhaps, by now, even forgetting - what they enjoyed doing” (Line 4). The episode “Rosebud”, from the T.V. show Simpsons, exemplifies the same problem when Mr. Burns overlooks what actual happiness is truly about because he would rather keep his childhood stuffed bear over a child’s happiness, but after some time Mr. Burns states “Okay, Maggie. You win. But I want

morality permits each of us a sphere in which to pursue our own plans and goals.

“As soon as a religion comes to dominate it has as its opponents all those who would have been its first disciples.” Nietzsche was one of the first modern philosophers to rebel against rationalism and when World War I came about, the revolution against religion truly became a legitimate statement. Friedrich Nietzsche strongly believed that many of those that practiced religion were led to the acceptance of slave morality. Religion had always played a fundamental role in society as it sets strict boundaries and standards of what is morally correct and incorrect. However, Nietzsche claims that, “Human nature is always driven by “ ‘the will to power’ ”, but religion will tell one otherwise, saying that one should forbid their bad desires. In Nietzsche’s

He recommended gaining a rational control over one’s desires, these desires being those that can be harmful to life such as: lust, greed, pride, and power. He argued that the key to human happiness is to turn away from the body and towards the soul. He said that harmonizing the different parts of the soul would produce a divine-like state of inner tranquility that the external world could not alter. A moral life is to be preferred to an immoral life. This view of happiness is linked to other concepts such as justice, virtue, and the ultimate meaning of human existence. Living a moral and just life would lead to a happier life.

We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.

Morality has been a term of debate for several years by intellectuals who have not come to the final conclusion of its definition. According to Damon (5), morality is an existing, multifaceted construct that may not be pinned down by any single definitional criteria which is flexible. The moral character has long been associated with happiness which is that state of having achieved one's desires although there are some disconnections. Several theories have been forwarded in connection to morality and happiness as far as the society is concerned. In this argumentative paper we shall give detailed analysis of morality and happiness and whether or not moral character is a requirement to happiness.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher and held in regard amongst the greatest philosophers of the early part century. He sharpened his philosophical skills through reading the works of the earlier philosophers of the 18th century such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer and African Spir; however, their works and beliefs were opposite to his own. His primary mentor was Author Schopenhauer, whose belief was that reality was built on the foundation of experience. Such as it is, one of his essays, Schopenhauer als Erzieher, published in 1874, was dedicated to Schopenhauer (Mencken, 2008). In the past two centuries, his work has had authority and influence in both

In conclusion, to life a life of morality we must live by the virtues, respond to God's call in our lives, and develop character that resembles a life of virtue. By living out the virtues we become closer disciples of

Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and