Name:
Institution:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
According to Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals, what is the origin of morality (i.e., the values ‘good’ and ‘evil’)? To what extent would Nietzsche agree or disagree with Rousseau’s account of the origin of morality? Whose account is more convincing and why?
Introduction
The ability to coexist in a harmonic manner in the society is largely depended on the capacity to uphold moral behavior. This is defined by numerous virtues that are prescribed by the society and which guide human behavior. Assumption of vices is likely to culminate in conflicts that have far reaching implications on the wellbeing of humanity. In the current society, there are so many sources of morality that range from the legal provisions to religion. These are acceptable by the population and they prescribe acceptable behavior that seeks to further the good in the society. Notably, the relative knowledge about this was generated some time back and has been passed on through time. The truth that these repositions hold is often largely at stake, especially considering the fact that in most instances, these are not factual and therefore can not be tested and distinct findings employed in shaping ethical values.
From a philosophical point of view, the issue of origin of morality did raise various controversies as different philosophers had varying perceptions about the same. While some contended that morality was an intrinsic aspect of human creation, some posited that it was largely shaped by the society. It is in this consideration that this paper provides a comparative and critical review regarding the origin of morality as presented by Nietzsche and Rousseau. In order to enhance a harmonic consideration, it will begin by reviewing the positions of each of the philosophers with respect to origin of morality. Then, it will underscore the inherent differences in the perception by the two philosophers. Finally, it will assume a viable position and defend this through credible argumentation.
In his review, Nietzsche ascertains that morality and values are a common aspect of human relationships. He indicates that his quest for knowledge regarding the origin of good and evil was stimulated way back when he was only thirteen years. In this regard therefore, he shows that his prepositions are non academic in nature. According to him, the ideal society is comprised of both the good and evil man. He indicated that God is the sole source of good as well as evil. Thus the human perception of these ideals has far reaching implications on his welfare. Nietzsche notes that these ideas as presented by man are very demeaning because they confine the same to a certain way of life. He posits that since God is the source of the values and virtues that define morality and righteousness, the conception of man with regard to this is unfounded.
The assumption of specific positions in this regard can be implicated for the slow rate of economic development. This is because of the prescriptions that these present to the behavior of man. Nietzsche fails to understand why humans consider values to be good and vices evil. He speculates that perhaps exploration of the behaviors and characters that are considered evil is likely to yield beneficial effects. Although it can be seen as danger in the short run, abandoning vices according to this school of thought denies the society a chance to benefit immensely from the conceived long term effects that are associated with the same.
In addition, he indicates that morality can also be perceived as a social aspect that has evolved over time and as one that was created accidentally. This perception accords morality a distinct time in history. In this regard, it is certain that Nietzsche considered this aspect to have been developed and introduced in the human thought at a distinct time. In addition, he argues that just like humanity, the moral conception is also not pure and in some cases it tends to be erroneous. As such, he suggests that it needs to be accorded a lighter and cheerful perception and employed more frequently in human relationships and interactions. This would enable humanity to be flexible and utilize the same for its advantage rather than perceive it as an absolute aspect that is rigid and one that requires minimal modifications.
Rousseau on the other hand perceived morality to be a conception that is shaped by societal perceptions. He explains this by indicating that devoid of the societal construction, man can be considered a very noble being. He had some degree of intrinsic goodness when he assumed a state of nature. This in this respect can be likened to the nature of animals and plants. According to him, this is the status that man assumed prior to civilization and creation and development of societies. Thus it was entirely characterized by good values and limited knowledge with regard to values, virtues and vices and the role that these play in society. This state of affairs however changed when civilization was introduced and respective societies created. In particular, it introduced knowledge of values, virtues and vices and the relative activities such as corruption. The subsequent experiences of man made him very unhappy and with time, he conformed to the societal ideals.
In his review, Rousseau also indicates that the state of nature is characterized by a high level of brutality. This was contributed to by lack of fundamental morals and laws that are imperative in guiding social behavior. Notably, this preposition was opposed to the initial views that indicate that the state of nature is ideal. Rousseau ascertains that the moral wellbeing of man is in most instances determined by the conditions of the society. In such as situation, it is indicated that man is likely to assume competition for resources with his fellow men. Because of the threat that the rest of the men pose, he is in most instances compelled to form alliances that are referred to as a society .This then puts forth specific conditions that members need to conform to. These conditions are what culminate in loss of vital ideas that prescribe ethical human behavior because they tend to favor certain segments of the society.
Activities such as arts and sciences according to Rousseau can be blamed for the inherent societal problems that have undermined the ability of man to uphold righteousness. This has been achieved through the development of knowledge by various segments of the society. As such, the governments and other individuals that are well endowed with regards to resources have continuously deprived the rest of the population their important rights to liberty. Material progress according to him has compromised the ability of the society to uphold viable relationships. Increasingly, these are broken apart by suspicion, fear and jealousy.
These conditions also lead to a state of inequality as some parts of the population tend to have more resources than other segments. Rousseau argues that this prompts the formation of laws and morals whose main aim is to protect the wellbeing of the disadvantaged in the society. In this consideration therefore, Rousseau considers the origin of morality to be ingrained in the inherent societal inequality that characterizes the current world. In addition, he indicates that morality and politics are intricate aspects that are inseparable.
The perceptions of Rousseau with regard to morality differ significantly from those of Nietzsche. From the preceding analysis, it is certain that Nietzsche believes that God is the sole source of morality that comprises of both good and evil. This is exemplified by the story of creation that ascertains the independence of man from morality and shows that God was the entire source of good and evil. With respect to the former, he points out that God created a world that was filled with goodness. However, he later introduced evil that tempted man to fall in the sins. The consequences for this have been felt in numerous generations.
Rousseau on the other hand believed that morality is socially constructed and is not related to any way to the divine nature. Unlike Nietzsche who perceives man to be independent of morality and even encourages him to avoid strict adherence on the provisions that morality presents, Rousseau contends that man plays a critical role in shaping the societal ideals as well as morality. Rousseau indicates that the contribution of man to this can not be underestimated. In particular, he cites that man is responsible for formulation of the various values that define the virtues, values and vices that define moral behavior.
It is also clear that unlike Nietzsche who considers morality to be an event that has evolved through time, Rousseau contends that this is a process that is contributed to by numerous factors that are intricate and augmenting in nature. In particular, he shows that this is influenced by various aspects of human wellbeing that range from jealousy to fear and selfishness. Notably, this leads to the formation of laws and moral values that are equally complex in nature. At this juncture, it can be contended that the latter perception of the origin of morality is more comprehensive than the former.
From the analysis, it can be argued that the argument provided by Rousseau is more practical and therefore relatively convincing than Nietzsche’s. To begin with, it is worth acknowledging that with the advent of science, different factual information provides alternative explanation with regard to the evolution of man. Although religious views also present varied perceptions, it should be appreciated that the increasing objectivity requires verifiable and convincing explanations. However, concerns involving God can not be verified scientifically because of the complex nature of the same. Basing on this, it can be argued that the credibility of the information provided in the creation account is at stake. This is further compounded by the controversies that surround the authorship of the bible.
Inequality has proved to be a very thorny issue since historical times. Historical evidence ascertains that the most powerful in the society used to amass resources at the expense of the weak, helpless and poor. This is a natural conception that is typical of an environment that is characterized by limited resources. Regardless of the fact that nature could be the only one prevalent competition is bound to occur. In this regard therefore, it can be posited that unhealthy competition led to inequality that then prompted the society to create laws and prescribe values accordingly. Failure of this is likely to have led to imbalances at different levels.
Social dynamics indicate that the powerful in the society always have an upper hand in resource allocation and utilization. Since this power is already vested in them by the natural forces, according them absolute power is likely to aggravate the inequality situation. As such, laws are mandatory and they play a fundamental role of modulating social power. Also, it is note worthy that these laws are derived from the values and virtues that define acceptable behavior. The values are important as they prevent occurrence of social conflicts that could threaten the holistic welfare of humanity.
In addition, it can not be disputed that knowledge tends to have vital implications on the holistic being of an individual. Essentially, it provides the same with vital information as well as awareness about various issues. Knowledge has the capacity to alter attitudes and modify the behaviors of the respective individuals. It imparts skills that are fundamental for pursuing various aspects of an individual’s life. At this juncture, it can be ascertained that increased scientific knowledge contributed to the enlightening of the affected individuals with regard to resource exploitation. This could have led to increased competition which could have culminated in erosion of vital values that governed social behavior.
Arguably, when operating as an individual, man tends to make individual decisions with a great percentage of comfort as well as behavior. However, increased competition forced him to join others in order to work together for a common good. Thus he was forced to sacrifice the independence in order to benefit from what the society had to offer. With regard to accumulation of property and assets and property, this implied that he could not easily get the same as it belonged to other individuals. Formulation of vital laws and moral standards is instrumental in providing guidance when resolving such issues.
Conclusion
From the research, it is certain that morality and laws are fundamental for harmonic co existence within the society. They provide guidelines for acceptable behaviors and help to prevent conflicts in the society. As it has come out from the study, the religious sources of moral values can be considered to be subjective and therefore not credible for explaining origin of morality. Rousseau’s perception seems to be more credible because it addresses real life issues that the society continues to grapple with. Nevertheless, both approaches provide useful insights about the origin of morals.
Bibliography
Friedrich Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals. USA: Vintage, 1989.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Philosophy, Morality and Religion. USA: Dartmouth, 2007
