Nowadays, it is extremely complicated to defend the alternative understanding of morality. For some reasons, an approach that the self-interest is opposite to true morality is supported by the majority of people, whereas Kant has underlined that duty, obedience and non-resistance are far from the real living of the life, and therefore – far from moral happiness.
Answering to the common belief that morality and self-interest are on the other sides, I consider it important to point out that in fact, they cannot be separated from each other, since even the noblest of acts is not deprived of the at least small amount of self-interest. What is more, blind following to the duties and obligations cannot be considered as equal to the moral choices, since such unconscious behavior destroys the morality itself.
Continuing this topic, it is also relevant to mention Nietzsche’s herd and master morality. Whereas the followers of herd morality try to be as obedient as possible, those, who reject this kind of morality, respect love for domination and enterprise, recklessness as the values. Under Nietzsche’s observations, people of herd morality began to consider self-responsibility “as almost insulting, which awakens mistrust, the “lambs” and even the “sheep” gain respect” (Singer, 1994, p. 49).
Furthermore, the virtues of reckless independence, cultivated by those, who reject the herd morality, can be associated with Freud’s so-called id. Following the Freud’s theory, people try to suppress id with the power of super-ego. Several reasons can be found for such a behavior: firstly, people are afraid of the wild nature of id in comparison to civilized society norms. Secondly, people may be too oppressed with the understanding of morality as a duty, therefore, they do not allow the id to develop even its positive values.
Works Cited
Singer, Peter. Ethics. Oxford University Press, 1994.
