Philosophy
The correlation of ethics and philosophy is a problem, it is difficult to say to what extent the morality is socially determined. In fact, we should talk about an individual morality, but even in this case, it should be borne in mind that even very personal, individual norms and moral values in most cases have a social nature. In some cases, their social origin is not so obvious, but upon closer inspection we can find that any individual morality is largely socially determined. This situation is explained by the fact that the process of establishment and the formation of personality, that is, the formulation of values, including moral values, there is a process of socialization, and the norms formed under the direct influence of the various social institutions. For this reason, we can assume that the ethical perspective on the status is relevant to the socio-philosophical, but it is not identical with it. The fact that some researchers believe morality, along with the right and religion one of the most important forms of social consciousness can allow us to consider the philosophy of morality as a social and philosophical discipline.
There are a few places where we can meet Kant’s and Nietzsche’s names together, that much they are different. But they have one thing in common, the desire to defend the human right to personal and deeply heartfelt choice, freedom to define his values, his morals, his destiny. Kant and Nietzsche offer opposite solutions to the same problem of the moral autonomy. Kant was the first to introduce the principle of distinguishing between actual ethics from something that has no direct relation to the morality. Nietzsche, in his turn, subjected the re-evaluation of values, bringing into question the very existence of morality. If Kant proceeds from the idea of a universal, common to all sentient beings the base, Nietzsche proclaims the kingdom of limitless arbitrariness (Potts). The concept of the moral autonomy implies two meanings. In the negative, autonomy means that the subject does not depend on anything other than himself and his own reasons. In the positive, one’s reasons are determined by a subject in the act of goal setting. According to Kant, this subject has a dual nature. Two kinds of causation affect his will: causality of the sensual origin, determined by the laws of the physical world; and causality of the intelligible origin, determined by the internal laws. Personality can be considered moral only if it triumphs sensual motivation. In contrast to Kant, Nietzsche sees a man as a being entirely natural, which does not gain transcendental world (as in Kant), but which gains Nothing. Man has not become, but he is only becoming: but as the supersensible world does not exist, thus man is a creature which belongs exclusively the world of sense. Personality, according to Nietzsche, is primarily individuum, but not dividuum (Williams). It is no place to any division, on the empirical and the transcendental. Moreover, Nietzsche puts instincts and inclinations above reason, considering them a true manifestation of human nature.
My vision of morality and its nature is categorically different from that of Nietzsche. Firstly, at this point it is detected the weakness of his philosophical construction, the failure to prove the phenomenon of freedom. The freedom cannot exist in a strictly deterministic world of sense. It is not impossible to ignore this problem: there is «amor fati» and, therefore, an underlying rejection of freedom. Secondly, in Kant’s system people are the goal, and Nietzsche, on the contrary, sees in man that must surpass, the raw material of evolution, which is Superman (Übermensch). And if for Kant, with whom I agree, the criterion of the truth of moral progress serves the self-determinated reason, then, for Nietzsche such a criterion are vital instincts, in particular - the will to power. I adhere to the ideas of Kant, to which all people are equally immeasurable values that cannot be identified by any scale.
Nevertheless, I share the idea of Nietzsche, where he aims to raise the species as a whole, requires from the individuality not only strength, but also awareness of belonging to the humanity and responsibility of it. But the community of Supermen is impossible without the universal laws, regulations, mandatory for all its members, and Zarathustra declares that his legislation applies only to the selected people (Potts). I believe that the measure of the power of a unified society is much higher than the individual. Therefore, a single superhuman society is more powerful than the individual-superman. But for the existence of such a society it is required some universally significant laws that can serve as a universal principle equally acceptable and credible to all. As such principle, Kant introduces a categorical imperative, very formal and universal in his nature. It is important to note Kant’s principle of the identity of morality and sociality. Therefore, in his system, there is no contradiction between the moral development of the individual and the moral development of mankind: the moral development of the individual is identical to the moral development of society. This means that there is no contradiction between individual and social morality. If everyone refuses heteronomous principles self-lawmaking; if he uses the principle of self-assertion of morality; if this morality will have a value of universality, thus, any contradiction between man as a unity and humanity as a whole cannot occur. Kant comes from the fact that the universal law is apriori inherent in us, and our main task is not to invent it, because then it will be something outer for everyone, and its observance will be only legality, the letter but not the spirit.
The main specific feature of the person, from my point of view, which makes him stand out from the rest of the world, is freedom. Man is free, and thus he is different from all the rest. In the world of physical phenomena it is limited and can only be attributed to the category of relative - freedom of choice. But in our world, a person is given the freedom to build her own reasons. This reason, for Kant, is nothing but a moral law. It serves as the basis of all inner lawmaking, according to which a person is a transcendental subject. Freedom itself manifests in the construction of an autonomous moral self-lawmaking. Therefore, the concept of the moral being and free being refer to the same specific feature of man. Morality is something special that distinguishes man from other phenomena of the world. Recognizing the important role of morality in the structure of personality, Nietzsche seeks primarily to accentuate things. He distinguishes healthy and unnatural morality. Every healthy morality is governed by some instinct of life. The requirements of life are carried out according to a specific statute, prescribing that should or should not be done. On the other hand, unnatural morality, all morality, which is still there, on the contrary, is directed against the instincts of life. The world itself is beyond good and evil. Things do not contain a value; people put meaning in them. All previous set of values is made by society and expresses its specific needs, provides a means of self-preservation of the human race.
Nietzsche could not give up the best, in his view, people for the rest, which for the most part is only raw material and often not even suitable for the manufacture of a new substance that bears the proud name of man. The source of moral values is not the human mind, not a person, but the human “self”. Nietzsche defines this “self” as the “will to power”, which sees the inner foundation of life in general, and in particular, the moral life of mankind. If Kant clearly distinguishes between the empirical and the nature of man, sensual instincts and intelligence, then Nietzsche is quite definitely brings intelligence, consciousness and morality of the sensual nature of man. He has the place of morality, and this place is to aid and increase vitality. If morality does not conducive it, it is not only unnecessary, but harmful. I can not agree with this statement of Nietzsche. He rejects Kant’s morality for the sake of morality and proclaims morality for the sake of completeness of vital instincts.
In spite of the fact, that Nietzsche often calls himself immoralist, but it’s worth noting that he not only denies the moral and ethical values, but also sets them. This alleged moral values, from his point of view, is not morality in the true sense of the word. Unlike Nietzsche, Kant does not ask the question of what is moral in general (Ricardi). This position is close to me, as I have repeatedly crushed this question. Kant defines the moral boundaries of his categorical imperative, which is primarily a formula of any possible morality. Then, I believe that Nietzsche is right, believing his doctrine not morality, but “supermorality”.
Kant, exploring the nature of the individual, tries to get to something universal and versatile. Nietzsche is not interested in universal and general. Kant, as much as I, is committed to universal validity, Nietzsche - to the identity and individuality (Williams). For Kant personality is primarily important, while for Nietzsche - individuality. As can be seen from the above, Kant’s and Nietzsche’s points of view of the place of morality in the nature of the individual vary greatly. As for me, the person only becomes a person and when he becomes moral. Ethical actions serve as phenomena, which is manifested the noumenal substance of morality, and consequently of the person. In other words, moral behavior ontologically reveals the intelligible human nature in existence. So, human as a thing in itself is carried out, it finds physical existence in the world of sense.
I believe that in order to launch acts of law requires the mind, and the will is nothing else than the practical reason. There are pure theoretical reason, apriori defining universal and necessary principles of cognition; but there is also a pure practical reason (or pure will) apriori giving universal and necessary laws. From my point of view, only pure will can be autonomous. The Nietzschean will to power must be attributed to the will determined by sensual impulses and inclinations. The activities based on arbitrary sense, cannot be the will of autonomy, because all practical principles that define such arbitrariness cannot be universal and necessary laws - both tangible and empirical principles. Physical principles are exactly the same, because they belong to the general principle of self-love or personal happiness. In my understanding, happiness is the wish of every rational being and, consequently, the inevitable basis for determining its ability to desire - it is a problem that it imposes its ultimate nature.
Thus, Kant and Nietzsche, each in its own way, try to unravel the contradictions of human nature, associated with the relationship of man and society, man and another man. Nietzsche’s idea of a solution to the problem at the expense of extreme individualism, denying all validity and universal interesting, is completely contrary to my vision of this difficult issue. Of course, it makes the moral autonomy of man independent of the public mood and influences, but leaves it in front of no less formidable threat - loneliness. While gaining self, “Ego” loses the others. The question is how this choice is justified? Kant proposes another solution, which I consider more appropriate. The individual must be free to retain his uniqueness and originality. But the man has a force, to not violate his own I, to seek and find common for relationships with other people. The common does not need to be invented: apriori it is contained in the human rational nature. This is the values that lie at the basis of man as a rational being (homo sapiens).
Works cited
Potts, David. “Does Nietzsche Believe In Morality? Ayn Rand, Objectivism, And Individualism”. The Atlas Society. N.P., 2011. Web. 8 May 2016.
Ricardi, Mattia. “Nietzsche’s Critique Of Kant’s Thing In Itself”. Academia.Edu. N.P., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016.
Williams, Garrath. “Nietzsche’s Response To Kant’s Morality”. The Philosophical Forum. N.P., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016.
Risse, Mathias. “Nietzschean “Animal Psychology” Versus Kantian Ethics”. Harvard.edu, N.P., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016.
