Kant vs. Nietzche

593 Words3 Pages
Breanne Keeffe Kant and Nietzsche | | Ethics Kant asks the question “How is human knowledge possible?” and Nietzsche asked the question “Why is human knowledge necessary?” Kant was the first of out of the two to present his take on the genealogy of morals. “By claiming that the moral being has to be a rational being Kant reaches the core of his theory: it is the principle of the will behind every action that determines its moral worth.” Nietzsche’s presentation of the development of morals is that if we are to become real people and real individuals and be able to think for ourselves then how much of a challenge is that really going to be. Is there a destiny and if there is then would we really want to reach it, because what comes after that? “Nietzsche argued that the quest for the truth is driven by the desire to control and affirm human existence.” Without being caught up in a human will to power no philosophy can actually define the truth. Nietzsche set out to find the origin of the Judeo-Christian meaning of moral was. points out that the nobles were the first to distinguish their own moral values and they decided what was right and anything that is not in accordance with these principles were bad and wrong. Resentment was then formed because when one was born in the earlier times they were born into that social status and nothing and no one was going to be able to change that. He then separates the morals into two sets the noble Good/Bad and the ignoble good/evil. He says that by nature humans are not promising animals. Nietzsche knows that humans need values. Nietzsche’s “revaluation all values” conflicts with Kantian ethics. Many of Nietzsche's central concerns come from and involve the same traditions that shape current ethical thought; and so it is a welcome sight to see an increasing number of commentators joining his
Open Document