The principal value, which the principles of morality are based on, has always been discussed. The most widely accepted answers are happiness and safety. Nietzsche in his theory of morality also approaches this concept but from a different direction. He claims that the aim of any society, as well as the supreme value in the ethics, are the happiness of the minority – aristocracy. He explains that, essentially, all life is built upon exploitation, appropriation, violence and struggle for dominance. He argues that they are unavoidable because they represent what life really is – the will to power. Accordingly, power is the greatest value in Nietzsche's philosophy and ethics. In his view, the society exists for the sole sake of its ruling class or aristocracy. Corruption, he claims, is when aristocracy stops from considering itself the sale and meaning of its society and starts to think of itself as its function (Nietzsche and Kauffman p.203 pas.3). His approach is very controversial but somehow attractive to cling to.
Response
Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the most controversial and debated philosophers of the last two centuries. He though out his own new approach to morality and philosophy, reformatted perception of principal values and reformatted the way in which the philosophy is viewed. Not all of his innovations were accepted (the majority of them were actually debated and refuted), but his large contribution to philosophy and human thought is hardly debatable. Although his theory of morality is innovational and controversial to all previously considered accounts, it still has significant drawbacks in it. In this essay, I will argue that while the presuppositions in Nietzsche's theory are right, the inferences he makes are wrong.
The initial and primary presupposition of Nietzsche's theory is that life's main purpose and the characteristic is the will to power. The examples which he comes up with (the vine using the oak to grow, etc.(Nietzsche and Kauffman p.204 pas.1)) are reasonable, and essentially what we can see from observing nature is that every creature clings to the promotion of its own life and his own survival. The predators get faster and grow bigger teeth; the snakes develop sharper fangs and deadlier poison, the bugs adapt their exterior to the environment they live in. The progress and development are the essence of life itself. However, the inferences Nietzsche makes from this claim are wrong, which will be discussed in the next paragraph.
The main conclusion out of the will for power Nietzsche makes that the violence, subduction, and exploitation are the best expressions of life, is wrong because these types of interaction are non-productive and, in the end, destructive to the exploiters. The historical examples of this counterargument are abundant in the 20th century. The totalitarian regimes which all based on the principles of exploitation of the ruled class by the ruling proved themselves inconsistent as almost all of this regimes have fallen from the hands of the exploited and, moreover, these regimens were destructive to the state's economy and the mentality of its residents. The history of Ancient Greece is another great example. Being the democratic and non-military state Ancient Greece has developed in terms of economy, culture, and sciences much greater than the warring states of that time. Further examples of cooperation being the most productive form of interactions can be found in nature. The ecosystems built upon symbiosis are highly robust in their survival while strongly competitive and violent ecosystems are very unstable. So, it is evident, that interactions based on cooperation are more stable, productive, and, therefore, pertinent t the self-expression of the life itself.
References
Nietzsche, Friedrich and Walter Kaufmann. Beyond Good And Evil. New York: Random House, 1966. Print.
