is nietzsche a moral relativist

Full Answer

What is Nietzsche's view of morality?

He proposed that morality itself could be a danger. Nietzsche believed that morals should be constructed actively, making them relative to who we are and what we, as individuals, consider to be true, equal, good and bad, etc. instead of reacting to moral laws made by a certain group of individuals in power.

Is Nietzsche anti-realist about value?

One scholar, supporting an anti-realist interpretation, concludes that "Nietzsche's central argument for anti-realism about value is explanatory: moral facts don't figure in the 'best explanation' of experience, and so are not real constituents of the objective world. Moral values, in short, can be 'explained away. '"

Is Nietzsche a biologist?

While the French-interpreted Nietzsche of recent years emerged as an out-and-out relativist and precursor of postmodernism, a number of the essay writers here see his views on morality from the perspective of his ‘biologism’.

Does Nietzsche have a privilege?

Following Leiter (2019: 49–50), we may distinguish “Privilege Readings” of Nietzsche’s metaethics — which claim that Nietzsche holds that his own evaluative standpoint is either veridical or better justified than its target — from those readings which deny the claim of privilege.

See more

How does Nietzsche explain morality?

Nietzsche explains morality by scrutinizing the moral history of a specific society or culture, presenting how the social attitudes evolved over time. Nietzsche provides us a “genealogy” of morals about history. To describe genealogy is to locate the historical origins, and Nietzsche points out in the introduction of On the Genealogy of Morals that his aim is to inquire the historical roots of our moral beliefs. Morality is not an eternal outcome of a priori reason; it is a cultural construct that evolves over time with the historical growth of human communities. Nietzsche investigates the roots of human society back to two classes of morality which is known as ‘master morality’ and ‘slave morality’. The crucial set of moral principles for master morality is the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’; for slave morality, it is the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Nietzsche’s genealogy is then developed as an exposition of how master morality are destroyed by the slave morality. Nietzsche argues that the distinctive feature of the ‘good’/’bad’ dichotomy is that the positive term ‘good’ indicates the primary weightiness. The value it represents is the strong noble class affirmation of self. Nietzsche states that “The two opposing values good and bad; good and evil, have been engaged in a fearful struggle on earth for thousands of years”. “Good” means “strong”, having noble virtues, such as bravery, toughness, physical and mental power, and proudness. ‘Bad’ are those who are weak, petty, and vulnerability, who are completely lacking of noble virtues. They are not condemned for just being bad, and they are intrinsically poor.

Why did Nietzsche think morality evolved?

According to American philosopher Daniel Dennett, Nietzsche thought that morality has evolved from the pre-moral world of human history, because of the advantages it conveyed to the species. Dennett argues that, for Nietzsche, the desire for morality has formed in the sense of exchange. Footnote.

What is the stepping issue in Nietzsche's analysis?

One of the stepping issues in Nietzsche’s analysis is how to determine the specific scope of his moral criticism. This issue remains due to the mystifying characteristics of Nietzsche’s interpretation which contained two following interesting remarks: On the one side, Nietzsche is a mere opponent of every moral standards; on the other hand, Nietzsche is just a critique of some sort of morality, that is, “Christian” values. However, neither of the statements justify the valid statement (Leiter, 2002, p. 74). Yet, Nietzsche’s animosity against morality seems to endorse some features of moral relativism. Nietzsche inevitably recognizes some actions to be worthy of admiration and some to be worthy of scornful. The problem of the present study is to determine the extent to what Nietzsche’s moral relativism ideas actually are. On what grounds Nietzsche was relativistic towards morality and what kinds of realities he wanted to assess the relevancy of the standards involved? Are these assessments merely interpretations of his moral biases, or can we distinguish such a justification within his thinking? Was Nietzsche a moral relativist? Or how does Nietzsche’s critique of morality reflect to the arguments of relativism?

What is master morality?

Master morality recognizes his self as the main measure of values , and subsequently this individual develops its own values based on his self-affirmation. In this respect, Nietzsche asserts that: “The noble type of person feels that he determines value, he does not need anyone’s approval, he judges that ‘what is harmful to me is harmful in itself,’ he knows that he is the one who gives honour to things in the first place, he creates values. He honours everything he sees in himself: this sort of morality is self-glorifying” ( BGE, 260). Therefore, the formation of values is creatively achieved by the ‘noble individual’, and his creation of values affirms existence to which he assigns his personal essence. From this point of view, Nietzsche argues that master morality does not strive at delivering moral truths, nor does its values pertain to the truthful nature of social life and attitudes. Instead, master morality expresses a subjective view of certain dynamics and by this subjective definition petrifies the unique creation of self. For Nietzsche, the supremacy of selfish deeds lies at the core of the system of valuing master morality, as the self often recognizes its personal values in the estimation of morals. In other words, in master morality the definition of good and bad are determined over the personal interest of the individual, and it has a binding nature only for the self who can affirm existence by such valuations. “Rather it was “the good” themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, lowminded, common and plebeian. It was out of this pathos of distance that they first seized the right to create values and to coin names for these values: what had they to do with utility!” ( GM, I: 2).

How does the Genealogy of Morals represent power?

The core of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals consists of three archetypal features of power, and that the methodical central of genealogical discourses are histories of specific forces and powers. More significantly, Nietzsche has mentioned a moral valuation as incited by the will to power. ‘Power’ in these three models refers to rather diverse phenomena and they are associated to the ‘feeling of power’ in various ways:

What is descriptive moral relativism?

Descriptive moral relativism: Moral standards differ immensely over time from society to society and at the same time from individual to individual within the same community that has emerged under different historical situations, or social settlements in which they have been formed.

Who first used the word "relativism"?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first use of the word ‘relativism’ can be attributed to J. Grote’s Exploratio Philosophica (1865): “The notion of the mask over the face of nature is…what I have called ‘relativism’. If ‘the face of nature’ is reality, then the mask over it, which is what theory gives us, is so much deception, and that is what relativism really comes to.” (See Grote 1865:I.xi:229).

Why is Nietzsche so relevant?

However, none of these themes is central to why Nietzsche often strikes us as uncannily prescient, and why he is so relevant to con temporary debates driven by evolutionary biology about human nature and morality. First and foremost, like Spinoza before him, Nietzsche is a naturalist and a determinist.

How does Nietzsche describe the self?

For Nietzsche we act like other animals, primarily by our instincts. By contrast, the gift of reason is a late addition to those instincts, and by comparison only weakly efficacious. Nietzsche presents us with a fractured self: each of us is a site of competing biological drives without a controller in overall charge. Freud – a reader and admirer of Nietzsche – similarly presents the human being as a sort of battlefield between the ego, the superego and the id. More radically, Daniel Dennett [see p24], drawing on the findings of neuroscience, presents us with a ‘pandemonium’ view of the human psyche, where the self emerges from what he sees as so many ‘multiple drafts’ of reality as a sort of ‘fiction’. Dennett’s ‘fictional self’ is very much in accordance with Nietzsche’s views, as Dennett acknowledges. But even a ‘fictional’ self is still a choosing self, and not a merely passive receptor of experience. Here Nietzsche’s admonitions to “live dangerously” or to “multiply perspectives” seem adventitious. There is a tension in his work between his deconstruction of morality and his readiness to prescribe for us how we are to live.

What is Nietzsche's view of the body?

Generally speaking, Nietzsche takes delight in showing us how we deceive ourselves.

What are the themes of the Nietzsche essay?

The essays in this book look at a broad range of Nietzschean themes, including the will to power and the genealogy of Christian ethics as a slave morality. But there’s nothing on eternal recurrence (so dear to a former generation of Nietzsche exegetes), and the Übermensch (‘superman’) scarcely gets a mention. However, none of these themes is central to why Nietzsche often strikes us as uncannily prescient, and why he is so relevant to con temporary debates driven by evolutionary biology about human nature and morality.

What is Nietzsche's tendency to throw out themes?

Nietzsche has a tendency to throw out themes and leave us the task of seeing how they cohere. Many of the essays in this book try to tie up apparent loose ends, and make him say what he should have said if he had followed his insights through. We are entering a new era of Nietzsche studies. While the French-interpreted Nietzsche of recent years emerged as an out-and-out relativist and precursor of postmodernism, a number of the essay writers here see his views on morality from the perspective of his ‘biologism’. This is the very trait for which Heidegger once berated him, although there seems little reason why a philosopher should not draw on well-founded science.

What is the genealogy of morals?

Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals is an exercise in ‘animal psychology’, studying (in Nietzsche’s own words) “the physiology and evolutionary history of organisms and concepts.”.

Who denies that we can be rational deliberators?

For instance, Nietzsche denies that we can be rational deliberators in the way demanded by such philosophers as Kant. Kant sees us as choosing to act on the basis of reasons. Being the determinist he is, and taking the viewpoint on human nature he does, Nietzsche can have no truck with this.

What is Nietzsche's moral philosophy?

Nietzsche’s moral philosophy is primarily critical in orientation: he attacks morality both for its commitment to untenable descriptive (metaphysical and empirical) claims about human agency, as well as for the deleterious impact of its distinctive norms and values on the flourishing of the highest types of human beings (Nietzsche’s “higher men”). His positive ethical views are best understood as combining (i) a kind of consequentialist perfectionism as Nietzsche’s implicit theory of the good, with (ii) a conception of human perfection involving both formal and substantive elements. Because Nietzsche, however, is an anti-realist about value, he takes neither his positive vision, nor those aspects of his critique that depend upon it, to have any special epistemic status, a fact which helps explain his rhetoric and the circumspect character of his “esoteric” moralizing. Although Nietzsche’s illiberal attitudes (for example, about human equality) are apparent, there are no grounds for ascribing to him a political philosophy, since he has no systematic (or even partly systematic) views about the nature of state and society. As an esoteric moralist, Nietzsche aims at freeing higher human beings from their false consciousness about morality (their false belief that this morality is good for them ), not at a transformation of society at large.

What is morality in Nietzsche?

But the “morality” that a philosopher embraces simply bears “decisive witness to who he is ” — i.e., who he essentially is — that is, to the “innermost drives of his nature” (BGE 6). This explanation of a person’s moral beliefs in terms of psycho-physical facts about the person is a recurring theme in Nietzsche.

What does Nietzsche believe about moral values?

Nietzsche holds that moral (i.e., MPS) values are not conducive to the flourishing of human excellence, and it is by reference to this fact that he proposed to assess their value. The enterprise of assessing the value of certain other values (call them the ‘revalued values’) naturally invites the metaethical question: what status — metaphysical, epistemological — do the values used to undertake this revaluation (the ‘assessing values’) enjoy? (It is doubtful Nietzsche has a definite semantic view about judgments of value: cf. Hussain 2013, esp. 412.) Following Leiter (2019: 49–50), we may distinguish “Privilege Readings” of Nietzsche’s metaethics — which claim that Nietzsche holds that his own evaluative standpoint is either veridical or better justified than its target — from those readings which deny the claim of privilege. (Note that defenders of this latter, “skeptical” view need not read Nietzsche as a global anti-realist — i.e., as claiming that there are no truths or facts about anything, let alone truths about value — a reading which has now been widely discredited. There is, on the skeptical view at issue here, a special problem about the objectivity of value. For an argument that Nietzsche is a global anti-realist about value in particular, see Leiter 2019: 84–111.)

Why did Nietzsche eat so little?

Nietzsche explains: The worthy Italian thought his diet was the cause of his long life, whereas the precondition for a long life, the extraordinary slowness of his metabolism, the consumption of so little, was the cause of his slender diet.

What does Nietzsche want to urge?

For Nietzsche wants to urge — contrary to the moral optimists — that in a way largely unappreciated and (perhaps) unintended a thoroughly moral culture undermines the conditions under which the most splendid human creativity is possible, and generates instead a society of Zarathustra’s “last men” (Z P:5):

What is Nietzsche's criticism of MPS?

All of Nietzsche’s criticisms of the normative component of MPS are parasitic upon one basic complaint — not, as some have held (e.g., Nehamas [1985], Geuss [1997]), the universality of moral demands, per se, but rather that “the demand of one morality for all is detrimental to the higher men” (BGE 228). Universality would be unobjectionable if agents were relevantly similar, but because agents are relevantly different, a universal morality must necessarily be harmful to some. As Nietzsche writes elsewhere: “When a decadent type of man ascended to the rank of the highest type [via MPS], this could only happen at the expense of its countertype [emphasis added], the type of man that is strong and sure of life” (EH III:5). In the preface to the Genealogy, Nietzsche sums up his basic concern particularly well:

What is Nietzsche's argument for not being Causa Sui?

Nietzsche offers two kinds of arguments to show that we are not causa sui: that it is logically impossible to be causa sui; and that human beings are not self-caused in a sense sufficient to underwrite ascriptions of moral responsibility.

What do meta-ethical moral relativists believe?

Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.

Why does moral relativism fail?

Critics propose that moral relativism fails because it rejects basic premises of discussions on morality, or because it cannot arbitrate disagreement. Many critics, including Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality, since they seem to be rejecting an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason. Practically speaking, such critics will argue that meta-ethical relativism may amount to moral nihilism, or else incoherence.

What is meta-ethical relativism?

Normative moral relativists argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises.

What is descriptive relativism?

Descriptive relativism is a widespread position in academic fields such as anthropology and sociology, which simply admit that it is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in play in all historical and cultural circumstances.

What is normative moral relativism?

Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist.

Which philosophers believe that moral propositions are subject to human logical rules?

Some philosophers, for example R. M. Hare (1919–2002), argue that moral propositions remain subject to human logical rules, notwithstanding the absence of any factual content, including those subject to cultural or religious standards or norms.

Do moral universalists believe in tolerance?

Moral universalists argue further that their system often does justify tolerance, and that disagreement with moral systems does not always demand interference, and certainly not aggressive interference.

What is moral relativism?

Moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places. Instead of an objective moral law, moral relativism espouses a qualified, subjective view of morality, especially concerning individual moral practice where personal and situational encounters supposedly ...

What is the tragic truth of moral relativism?

The tragic truth for the moral relativist is this: when you hold God's funeral and bury His moral law along with Him, something will take His place. That something will be an individual or group of individuals who take power and, in authoritarian fashion, impose their own moral framework on everyone else.

Which philosopher said that empirical methods are incapable of answering such moral questions as whether or not the Nazis were evil?

In addition, empirical methods are incapable of answering such moral questions as whether or not the Nazis were evil. Einstein sums up the correct position in this matter: "You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.".

Is the natural universe a real thing?

The natural universe isn't a real option, as amoral matter cannot produce moral beings nor prescribe moral behavior. Neither can culture be appealed to, as there are many cultures throughout the world, all with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is "correct.".

Is there any absolute certainty in morality?

Therefore, all that can be ascertained at present (and forever) is that there is no absolute or fixed certainty in the area of morality. This argument, followed to its logical conclusion, ...

The Critique of Morality

• 1.1 Scope of the Critique: Morality in the Pejorative Sense
  Nietzsche is not a critic of all “morality.” Heexplicitly embraces, for example, the idea of a “highermorality” which would inform the lives of “highermen” (Schacht 1983: 466–469), and, in so doing, he employsthe same German word — Moral, sometimesMoralität — for both what he atta…
• 1.2 Critique of the Descriptive Component of MPS
  MPS for Nietzsche depends for its intelligible application to humanagents on three descriptive theses about human agency (cf. BGE 32; GMI:13; TI VI; EH III:5; EH IV:8): These three theses must be true in order for the normative judgmentsof MPS to be intelligible because the normative judg…

See more on plato.stanford.edu

Nietzsche’s Positive Ethical Vision

Nietzsche’s Metaethics

Nietzsche’s Lack of A Political Philosophy