Nietzsche's Views On Good And Evil

According to Nietzsche, the right and wrong (good and bad, good and EVIL) are just a type of the concept. Nietzsche explains that from the beginning in his first argument that the “good” did not originate among those to whom goodness was shown. It explains that the trait of “good” was really a trait as we know it today, it was actually people who were good themselves, which is Aristocratic who are powerful, high minded and high class people who controls the class below them and also politics in some cases. This was the concept that defined what right and wrongs were because it cleared things out that good was really a trait but the people who were powerful and high class in society, unlike bad which was completely opposite. But over the time

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.

In the first essay of On The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche states clearly his stand that "Beyond Good and Evil... does not mean "Beyond Good and Bad"" (Nietzsche, page 143). Nietzsche makes the distinction between good/bad, and good/evil, by delineating the central idea that what is good and evil generally carries a morality to its definitions, whereas the former is essentially a social construct with slanted purposes and no true objectivity to its meanings. Nietzsche frames the idea that the values of good and bad, are fundamental to how we involve morality in our thinking, namely, how we assess what is good and what is evil.

In a small rebel held town in Idlib province, the Syrian government used chemical weapons and killed dozens of civilians and injured hundreds more, including children. On April 6th United States President Donald J. Trump sent fifty-nine cruise missiles to an airbase responsible for the attack to protect the people of Syria. In this situation Donald Trump wanted to help the innocent civilians, but also made the United States a target and put the citizens of U.S. at risk. This is a perfect example of good versus evil. Literature writing also uses the theme of good versus evil. In the books The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Night by Elie Wiesel the themes of good and evil are developed by showing selfishness and loss.

This paper is a comparative study between Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil and Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. Detailing their views regarding ethical and unethical law.

Nietzsche's madman allegory represents the current moral situation of society during his time--a growing belief that God does not exist, a movement away from religious values. Nietzsche does not mean literally that God has been murdered, but because mankind created God, we also have the ability to kill God. In Nietzsche’s point of view, mankind created God by also creating a belief in God. By saying that mankind ‘murdered’ God, Nietzsche is proposing that we no longer believe in Him. With the grounding that religion provided in the past, Nietzsche fears that mankind will be left without purpose and virtues to lead them to do the correct thing. The ‘light,’ in Nietzsche’s allegory is belief in God; for this paper, light is a focus because of the implications that follow when there is none. With no light, everything previously known about moral beliefs and the world is overturned. Nietzsche proposes that instead of God guiding people (because people no longer believe in Him), people can follow their own virtues, such as courage, faith in oneself, and patience for the future.

Time passed, and while my interest in politics had not ceased, the polarizing political climate of 2015 did not indicate much hope for the future of American politics. Despite the daily headlines of congressional dissidence, my hopeful, maybe even idealistic approach to the political world is what maintained my faith in government. As the announcements of presidential campaigns began last summer, I was struck by one candidate that had encapsulated nearly all of my convictions. Bernie Sanders caught my attention because he was unabashed in expressing his ideas, although they sharply contrasted with the political banter of the time. Like Sanders, I too encountered

Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher in the 1800’s. His work has since influenced, impacted, and brought forth new questions for many philosophers to follow. One of Nietzsche’s famous writings Beyond Good and Evil expresses his views on society and the two different classes it holds, slave and master. He expresses his belief that the two are in warfare with one another, the strong (master) fighting for the will to power, while the weak (slave) tries to pull the master down to their level using clandestine forms of revenge. Nietzsche believed the slave morality was one that included humility, obedience, and submission, and was the destructive choice and attribute of Christianity, while the master morality was full of arrogance and pride

In “The Portable Nietzsche,” Nietzsche investigates the meaning of truth in the apparent world and its relationship to the proposed existence of God. More specifically, the philosopher attempts to explain how our world is misguided by the moral framework propagated by Christianity. This religion promises a God created “true world,” but only for those who are the most pious and repentant. However, even as this promise becomes more distant and obscure, the quest for everlasting life still creates a pervasive set of morals that taint one’s views of truth in the apparent world. Hence, the only way to overcome this obstacle and attain truth in this (apparent) world, is by divesting from the beliefs and moral framework created by Christianity.

Because we are so keen on learning, we are disengaged from our experiences, and therefore are not in the right place to understand ourselves (3). The words that are used to define any given concept are not to be taken at face value since the judgment of our moral values depends on their respective time periods and cultural influences, which are subject to change as everything else does. In other words, they are products of the moral projections of people’s values, which often have a multitude of dimensions that surpass the shallow fields of initial interpretation. Consequently, we need to look beyond the surface interpretation of these words by re-interpreting their meanings many times to be able to judge what we believe. As we change with time, our interpretations are subject to change, and our value systems evolve, both preventing us from establishing absolute meaning regarding anything. As a result, we cannot truly understand concepts unless we remove several historical layers from them. Many times throughout his polemic, Nietzsche hints at the necessity of asking a question from “various perspectives” (41). “Understanding the demonstrated purpose or utility of a thing, its form, its organization” is not

Argument about the Nature of Good and Evil As Presented In the Novella According to the Ester and Joshua (125), the concept of ‘evil’ takes on two sides; the broad concept and the narrow notion. The broad concept presents any bad state of affairs, wrongful action or a flaw in character. It is into two, which are the natural evil and the moral evil. Natural evil is non-intended bad state of affairs while moral evil, on the other hand, results from the intentional bad state of the affairs.

In “Beyond Good and Evil”, Nietzsche reveals the two primary forms of morality, this would be the master morality and slave morality. In the lecture we discussed Nietzche’s fatalism he believed that events people are fated, so each individual is fated to either have a master or slave type morality. The master morality is the morality of the people, who are strong willed people. The ‘good’ is the strong, powerful and the noble, whereas the ‘evil’ is the cowardly, powerless and meek. The essence of the master morality is dignity, bravery, honesty and sense of self-worth. That is to say that it takes the good and the bad are equivalent to nobility and shame. Master morality is the essentially the affirming morality. The Master morality affirms life, it is the here and now, and it is like nature and instincts.

Augustine believed that all people are good but evil comes from deviating from the plan of God and doing theirr won thing. We see examples all throughout the stories such as when the ring is used by Sauron to make him into an evil power source. Sauron uses his own will to become evil. Also when people put on the ring they become a lesser version of themselves which Augustine says, “If we are evil, to that extent we exist less…”

Plato and Nietzsche seem to have irreconcilable ideas on truth, value and philosophy, with Plato’s “invention of pure spirit and the Good in itself” (Nietzsche 4) and Nietzsche’s idea that most philosophers, including Plato, are simply dogmatists. However, after evaluating and comparing both Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil” and Plato’s Five Dialogues, it is clear that this polarity of ideas is a misconception. Nietzsche’s opinion on Plato and his idea on truth is both ambivalent and nuanced, and by comparing both approaches to the question of truth, there is a shared perspective on the nature of philosophy and its possibilities.

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.