Nietzsche on the Origin of Slave Morality, Essay Example

According to R.M. Hare, moral discourse essentially expressed in the form of prescriptives.  What is a prescriptive? How are prescriptives related to imperatives?  What is the theoretical significance of the fact that the imperative mood is different and not reducible to the declarative mood? According to Hare, what are the essential characteristics of moral imperatives? What, for Hare is the moral point of view? How is it relevant to his defense of preference utilitarianism?

Prescriptivism is defined as the belief than an ethical decision is one that is formulated according to the belief that good decisions are universal and that it is the responsibility of the decision maker to understand that proper judgment needs to be repeated in all similar situations. Prescriptives are related to imperatives because imperatives are also universalizable. Hare argues that the theoretical significance of the fact that the imperative mood is different and not reducible to the declarative mood is related to the rejection of the concept that “specifying the kind of speech act towhich that mood is assigned by the conventions that constitute our language”. Therefore, the mood of a sentence and the meaning of the sentence are not related.

According to Hare, the value of the moral imperative for maximally empathetic people who wish to achieve morality is to maximize now-for-now and then-for-then preferences. We must assume that the preferences of others are our own. This is relevant to his defense of preference utilitarianism, which promotes actions that fulfill the interests or preferences of the individuals or things involved. This is because if we all have the same interests, then the most utilitarian concept will be the one that we all share, thereby maximizing the benefit of the particular belief or action.

It is right to think of Nietzsche as offering an alternative moral theory to Aristotle, Kant or Mill, or is it better to think of him as urging the abandonment of those theories and all others like them.  In this context, is it right to think of Nietzsche as offering a moral theory at all? If it is not, then what sort of theory is he offering?

The main idea behind the philosophies of Nietzsche is that he wished to focus on the current world instead of the afterlife, indicating that it is better to focus on reality and aspects of life that we know to be true. He also believed that a major problem with people is that they often confuse the concepts of cause and effect. Furthermore, he was opposed to the idea of structure and that every problem could be addressed with a similar solution. Therefore, one could argue that Nietzsche proposes an alternative moral theory to Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. Mill claimed that ethical decisions are those that benefit the greatest amount of people, Kant claimed that individuals who take the actions with the most favorable consequences are the most moral, and Aristotle argued that those who try to act intrinsically “good” are moral.

While these three philosophers have clearly defined beliefs concerning what they believe morality to be, this is less the case for the work of Nietzsche. Rather than offering a moral theory to contribute to the existing concepts, he countered all moral theories by stating that we cannot prescribe one particular theory or idea to our understanding of behavior. This is the case because actions and decisions are not black and white issues; there are grey areas, and we must carefully consider how to determine morality independently in each situation as we encounter them.

What does Williams mean by a ‘narrative,’ by a ‘myth,’ by a ‘chronicle of facts,’ by a ‘genealogy’ by a ‘history’? How is the concept of truth related to the concept of history?  How does Williams analyze truthfulness? What is Williams’ argument that truth is a culturally invariant epistemological value and that truthfulness is a culturally invariant moral value? Is Williams’ ideal of truthfulness rich enough to validate an entire moral theory?

Williams uses the words “narrative”, “myth”, “chronicle of facts”,
“genealogy”, and “history”, to emphasize the different ways that the same thing can be said. While some individuals may belief that the statement within a particular sentence reveals the truth, others will argue that it is fiction or a good story. By providing this example, Williams demonstrates that when analyzing truthfulness, it is important to take into consideration all aspects of the particular case and to remain unbiased during the decision making process. In addition, it is important to think carefully about what the true moral point of view actually is in the situation. Furthermore, he conceded that moral thought requires abstraction. Williams denied other ethical theories because he believed that they do not account for the importance of character.

Ultimately, Williams argues that truth is a culturally invariant epistemological value and that truthfulness is a culturally invariant moral value. Regardless of our cultural values, we are able to distinguish between lies and the truth, which can allow us to more adequately define the different between moral and immoral action. Williams’ idea of truthfulness is not rich enough to validate an entire moral theory because also he states that Kantian ethics and utilitarianism do not consider truthfulness as a component for deciding on whether something is ethical or not, they do in reality. While these moral theories do not explicitly state that truthfulness is a component of morality, character and truthfulness come into play when an individual is deciding which actions will benefit the most people both by intention and by consequence. Therefore, Williams is really adding to these theories instead of creating his one new one.

To what extent must a successful ethical theory be grounded in a conception of human nature; to what extent must a successful ethical theory be grounded in culture? Be sure to begin be explaining what you take an ethical theory to be, and in particular, what you take it to be a theory about. Develop your answer by considering how some of the main philosophers we have studied (viz. Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Nietzsche and Williams) would address the question.  Identify the strengths and weakness of their answers; especially how they might address the weaknesses that you see in their views.

It appears that successful ethical theories must be primarily grounded in culture, as we cannot alter human nature. It is important for us to understand that humanity in general will always tends towards making some erroneous decisions. However, it is our responsibility to determine how we can utilize culture in a manner that helps us counter our natural tendencies. By organizing ourselves into societies, deciding upon rules to live by, and determining the punishments for breaking these rules, we are helping to counteract the natural evils that humans can commit. While these crimes will still occur, it is our responsibility to ground ourselves in cultural values that will help ensure they are reduced.

Many philosophers would agree with this particular opinion of human nature. While Aristotle argues that actions that we take must be considered “good” independently of the laws we put in place, it is important to consider that these laws are based on our decision as a society as to what is good and what is bad. We are not born knowing this difference, it is taught to us, and is therefore societal. We therefore create laws to ensure that the evil aspect of human nature is suppressed.

Mill would agree with this principle for a similar reason. In utilitarianism, he states that ethical decisions are those that intend to benefit the greatest number of individuals. We would not be able to even define what this benefit is, if it weren’t for our construction of society and culture. For groups, benefit can mean financial gain, happiness, increased social standing, among a variety of other things. These are all seen as good as long as everyone in the society agrees that this is the case. However, human nature is somewhat solitary, and the goals for each individual may not reflect the goals that society had set out for them. For this reason, we confine people within society to ensure that they are willing to consider the impact of their actions to the majority, because this helps protect a greater number of people.

Ultimately, the purpose of law and the understanding of ethical principles is to redirect human nature and to cause individuals to think of the greater group. As a consequence, it is more necessary for good ethical theories to be grounded in knowledge of culture than human nature. We all have the same human nature, so this is not a variable that needs to be accounted for. Rather, we need to understand how our culture helps modify behavior, which is why it is necessary to develop philosophical theories in this manner.