Kant and Nietzsche on Morally Good Human Life

Table of Contents

Introduction
Kants Formula of Humanity
Nietzsches Moral Psychology
Conclusion
References

Introduction

There are three common frameworks for moral philosophy: deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is possibly the oldest ethical theory in the world, with origins in Ancient Greece. Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. The term is applied to any classification or theory of moral values or principles. It defines good actions as ones that display virtuous character traits, like courage, loyalty, or wisdom (van Zyl, 2018). Morally good human life refers to a state of possessing what is viewed as a good character, embedded in virtue. In the broad sense of this term, that embraces a variety of particular virtues such as courage, justice, temperance, and the like. Morally right actions usually refer to good actions, to do the right thing. This paper explores the qualities and character of a morally good human life, focusing on Kant and Nietzsche philosophies.

Kants Formula of Humanity

The moral order is a norm in the social environment in which people act and interact. Virtue itself is a disposition to act, think and feel in certain ways. Kantian ethics are a set of universal moral principles that apply to all human beings, regardless of context or situation. I agree and support Kants philosophical approach, since, in my opinion, it reflects the true idea of morally good human actions and equality. The idea is based on empathy, and ethical virtues, which I think are the true identifications of morality and moral character.

Kants moral philosophy is a deontological normative theory, which means that he rejects the utilitarian idea that the rightness of an action is the meaning of how successful its result is (Biondi, 2022). Kant says that the motive, and not consequence, of an action, determines its moral value. To live ethically, one must never treat another human being as a means to some greater end. I fully support this idea since the use of one human by another as a means to achieve something is essentially immoral. Kants Formula of Humanity states: So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means (Kant, 1797). Thus, Kant promotes the idea of good actions should be treated as a motive itself instead of as a means to achieve a goal.

Moreover, Kants moral theory is referred to as a respect for others moral theory. Although Kant thinks that feelings cannot be required of anyone, some feelings are still associated with the moral ends one adopts. Therefore, respect is one of the core values of Kants philosophy and thus a quality possessed by a good moral human. Consequently, it matters to Kant that human performs the duties of virtue with properly cultivated emotions (Homiak, 2019). These feelings will make it easier to execute the duties and are a sign that humans are willing to do so. Kant remarks on the sympathy that it is one of the impulses that nature has implanted in us to do what the representation of duty alone would not accomplish (Kant, 1797). Thus, Kant not only promotes morally acceptable good deeds but also states that empathetic or sympathetic emotions are required to do the deed.

This leads to the idea of agent-based virtue ethics in the sentimentalist mode. It takes empathy as its critical instrument and seeks to show that empathy can provide the basis for understanding respect for others, social justice, reasons for action, and even deontology (Slote, 2021). This makes Kants approach to morality the only correct one, as, in my opinion, it involves the essential ideas of moral ethics. Thus, Kants theory is an example of the qualities and characteristics of a morally good human life. On the other hand, Nietzsche ignores the basic human tendency toward sympathy with others.

Nietzsches Moral Psychology

Nietzsche argues that there are two fundamental types of morality, master morality, and slave morality. Master morality values pride and power, while slave morality values kindness, empathy, and sympathy. He believes the structure of modern society to be rooted in slave morality (Kuczynski, 2021). Nietzsche argues that the master morality is set by the rulers who determine the conception of good. It is the exalted, proud disposition that is regarded as the distinguishing feature and that which determines the order of rank. Master morality was developed by the strong, healthy, and free, who saw their own happiness as good and named it accordingly (Hassen, 2018). By contrast, they saw those who were weak, unhealthy, and enslaved as bad, since their weakness was undesirable. Therefore, Nietzsches core argument against slave morality is that it is unnatural and incongruent with what he calls will-to-power, a natural, innate drive for self-improvement that everyone has (Kuczynski, 2021). I do not agree with that view because I do not believe in the master morality vs. slave morality notion.

In my interpretation, the notion that Nietzsche remarks on the similarity between the German word for bad and the words for plain and simple undermines his philosophy. By contrast, he notes, in most languages, the word for good derives from the same root as the words for powerful or masters or rich (Hassen, 2018). Nietzsches ideas of good and bad are based on language definitions, and the philosophical approach follows after. The main problem with this approach is that the rules are established by those in power, which does not agree with the notion of morality. Master morality is developed to benefit and define those in power by their own terms and ideas. The main idea of power does not align with the qualities of a morally good human. Moreover, power is not an ethical notion, nor does it involve ethical virtues. Slave morality is closer to the ethical philosophy of all since it involves ethical virtues. Honesty, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, and fairness are all examples of virtues (van Zyl, 2018). Thus, they all are included in the notion of slave morality. Thus, slave morality agrees with the characteristics of a morally good human life. In my opinion, Nietzsche was wrong to degrade and put slave morality as an undesirable one. In such a case, he undermines the idea of a morally good human.

Conclusion

As I have mentioned above, my view on morally good human life agrees with the ideas developed by Kant. Morally good character and actions are based on emotions such as sympathy and empathy. Good actions are based on motives and not on consequences. Therefore, the motive is the moral code that determines the ultimate goodness of the deed, not the end goal. Moreover, morally good action should include empathetic emotions, and other humans must be treated with respect. On the contrary, Nietzsche argues the opposite, that empathy determines weak morality. According to him, the main idea of moral ethics is based on power, which I completely disagree with. Power should not be a determinant of ethics and morality since power benefits only those who possess it.