What Is Spoke Zastra Unethical

Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two widely acclaimed philosophers due to the groundwork they made towards the philosophical principles of morality. However, even though they both have openly discussed their views, they have ended up contradicting each other. Kant implied that morality is not learned, but rather predestined, whereas Nietzsche alluded to a experience based morality, or one that is learned through actions and memories. Although these two men have accepted views of morality, the ideas of Nietzsche seem more applicable in relation to the present day; the world is constantly changing. There are two separate scenarios in which the issues of 'thou shalt not lie ' and 'thou shalt not steal, ' are morally assessed. The end results are supportive towards Nietzsche 's principles and detrimental towards Kant 's ideas. Overall, the moral concepts of Nietzsche will prevail as a result, illustrating the more probable use of his ideology.

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).

In the non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood, Truman Capote follows the tail of the Clutter family murder in Holcomb Kansas. Four members of the Clutter family are brutally murdered by two ex-cons and the story follows the hunt for the murderers, their capture, and eventually some country justice. The murder took place on the night of November 15, 1959. The investigators had no motive for the crime and the only clues that they had were two pairs of boot prints left by the killers. Capote took all of his notes and after the murder had been solved he began to formulate a new kind of non-fiction novel, a feat that no one had truly succeeded at before. Many challenges faced him due to not being able to change facts like a fiction writer might be

Author Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “Unless you try to do something beyond what you have already mastered, you will never grow.”. I think this quote is an explanation of a lot going on right now, and I will show that by using my own experiences as a guide. To grow even more you need to push past mastery. This could include sports, by pushing yourself even harder, and life by stepping out of your comfort zone.

Martin Luther king Jr. said “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”This means that violence does not get ride of violence. That only light can get rid of darkness. Then he compares it to hate and how hate can’t get rid of hate, How only love can get rid of hate.Dr. King wrote this in a time when the relationship between cops and African Americans was not good. King was trying to say violence will not solve the issues between cops and African Americans. This quote taught me that you won't get rid of anything if you use hate you can only get rid of hate when you use love .

After succeeding through hardships we gain the knowledge of our own strength. Although, I believe strife, in ways, always succeeds as well, seeing that without the success of strife, our strength teaches us nothing. We all would like to believe that strength always triumphs over strife, but in reality we wouldn’t gain that strength without the strife. In Elie Wiesel’s book, Night, he is faced with many hardships. He is forced into concentration camps and treated inhumanely, and his strength is constantly tested. Elie struggles with his mental, physical, and even spiritual health; especially during his trip to the final concentration camp. Although Elie loses so much during the holocaust, including his own family, he gains a dominating trait, strength.

In life, you are born into societies where various ideas or things are thought to be normal and the customs are already established. The novel Anthem by Ayn Rand has many themes, but what I believe the theme of the novel is, to think for yourself. To think for yourself means to make your own decisions and opinions, without depending on other people. I also think that if you are going to think for yourself you can’t worry about what other people will think of what you believe in. Whether you believe that you should only have school a few days a week or you believe in a certain god, no person should feel ashamed for what they believe in. In today’s society and in the society of Anthem, people don’t think for themselves and they just follow people blindly. In the media, today we see what celebrities are saying, who they like, who they dislike, what they use, what they endorse, and we follow them because we want to be like them. Sometimes you don’t realize that you’re not thinking for yourself, but not being able to think for yourself can make you miserable and that is what Equality 7-2521 realized in Anthem.

Civil disobedience this is how the internet defines it “The refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest”. The word explains it all disobeying in a Civil way. Many people have became famous for this for standing up for what they think is right. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, you can say that’s an act of civil disobedience she didn’t think it was right for her to sit in the back of the bus after a long day she disobeyed a law at that time but then we have a group of dumb people that think every law is wrong and its an act of civil disobedience. An example for this civil disobedience would be, people not obeying small laws like speeding, not paying taxes, small laws that to them they seem not right or not hurting anyone when broken. Maybe civil disobed

Humanity’s natural aggression means that civilization is “constantly threatened with disintegration” and it must make every effort to ensure these urges are curbed, in order for its continued existence. He continues in this vein, by stating that, in order for people to “forgo the satisfaction of their tendency to aggression” civilization encourages us to form into groups, however for this to work their must continue to be “outsiders,” that the aggression can be turned towards. This is in accordance with On the Genealogy of Morals, where it is the Slaves ascetic nature that forces them to also control their instincts. Likewise, both Freud and Nietzsche assert that these restrictions cause people to internalise their aggressions, turning inward.

On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche is typically listed as one of the most important philosophical works of the modern era. It is only modern, of course, to philosophical standards, being a mere 129 years old. It is also one of the most controversial works of its time, having the dubious distinction of being connected to Nazi ideology; it also has a not very subtle racist, sexist, and Darwinist bent that is a reflection of Nietzsche himself. That being said, I think that it is also serially misunderstood. Nietzsche directly mentions the role of interpretation in ethical discourse in the Genealogy, and the interpretive element factors heavily into one’s understanding of the polemic and by extension, ethics philosophy as a whole. Throughout the book, Nietzsche uses interpretation as a tool in itself to make a constructivist and existentialist argument about the history of ethics as whole. His idea that man has used interpretation throughout history, and the interpretive elements in Genealogy outside of the historical analysis, seem to say that almost all ethics are derived from interpretation and therefore constructivist in nature, which is a heavily existentialist argument. For example, the entirety of the first essay is based heavily upon the role of interpretation in the development of the early ethical systems that Nietzsche argues are built on the

The “is-ought” dilemma, first expressed by David Hume, says that one cannot derive an ought from what is, a prescriptive statement stating how one should act based on what exist. An attempt to refute this challenge is expressed by the hypothetical. If someone desires x and in order to get to x this person must do y, then one ought to do you y. The problem with that assertion is that in the absence of x one would have no reason to do y, and thus y is reliant on x, and not a value in and of itself. So y as an ought statement has no inherent value, and is thus subjective to x. ”...‘ought’ seldom, if ever, in ordinary use, refers to such supposed intrinsic requirements alone; it typically refers also to reasons or requirements of at least one of the other sorts, the intrinsic requirements being seen as backing them up” (Mackie, “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong” L.1120). “…although most people in making moral judgements implicitly claim, among other things, to be pointing to something objectively prescriptive, these claims are all false” (Mackie, “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong” L.450).

In the short story, The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, the main character Gregor Samsa wakes up to see that he has become a giant bug, and he and his family have to adjust to the changes that this has brought about. Kafka weaves several images and symbols through out the story, so many that writing a paper on all of them would be incredibly long. However, the thing I will concentrate on is the use and symbols of food that Kafka has placed in the tale. Just what do these symbols mean? Why are they there and what do they show about Gregor and his family and their relationship? I will prove in my paper that a piece of bread and bowl of milk can be much more than just a meal. The food in this story shows how life has changed for Gregor, and also that in some of the scenes, that it even has references to passages from the Bible itself.

Humans need the appearance of some sort of structure to live. They need rules to live by to tell them whether or not they are living “right”, in a good way or a bad way. We humans have come up with many different ways to tell whether we are living right “right” or not. We have come up with all of the different types of religions and the different sets of morals , all of which change throughout history and time depending on and reflecting it’s episteme. How can any religion or set of morals be considered the “right one” when there has been no consistency with either? Both Feuerbach and Nietzsche have the same belief, that religions and morals are only a crutch that humans grab on to in order to give some meaning to the random assortment of life on earth. Both think that religion was a crutch for humans because of our inability to be perfect. Religions especially Christianity (Jesus) have their own destruction built in to them because of the humanity aspect. Though Feuerbach and Nietzsche agreed upon this they had very different opinions on how it would come about.

The prophet Zarathustra descended from the mountains after ten years of isolation. He has descended to teach the masses about the overman, and the belief system that accompanies him. Nietzsche, through Zarathustra, is offering a new value system to replace Christianity. This value system can be referred to as ‘Zarathustraism’. A vital part to embracing this value system is the deconstruction of Christianity. Man has redefined Christianity to better suit personal desire, and it has begun to fail as a result. Zarathustraism will teach Man to live in the light of the Overman, free of the negativity Christianity caused.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” (Gay Science, 126) This harsh statement remains among Friedrich Nietzsche’s most powerful and disturbing quotes, spoken by a proclaimed Madman to a crowd of disbelievers. After making this claim, the Madman becomes horrified by his audience’s ignorance, noting that “This tremendous event is still on its way.” This has an effect of suspending the Madman’s message in time, expanding its audience infinitely, for the event of God’s death could still be on its way. Therefore, nearly 150 years after these words were written, we must ask ourselves, does God remain dead, and has our modern society killed him? This is a haunting and disturbing question, but in many ways our society does resemble Nietzsche’s masses. However, it also resembles the Madman himself, due to its inherent individualism.