oonaxzieoo’s Weblog

Friedrich Nietzsche mentioned that the essential thing in a good and healthy aristocracy is that it should not regard itself as a function either of the kingship or the commonwealth but as the significance and the highest justification that it should accept with a good conscience. Its fundamental belief must be precisely that society is not allowed to exist for its own sake but only as a foundation and scaffolding be means of which a select class of beings may be able to elevate themselves to their higher duties and in general to a higher existence. One is said to think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, and conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusions of peculiar forms, incorporation and at the least putting it mildest exploitation. It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to men, and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to actions.

             Slave morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis “good” and “evil”. It is an additional instance of his egoism, this artfulness and self-limitation in intercourse with his equals every star is a similar egoist. He honours himself in them and in the rights which he concedes to them he has no doubt that the exchange of honours and rights.

It was mentioned in this chapter that, religion is often said necessary so that people will do right. Therefore it is said to be necessary because it provides motivation to do the right thing. It was also mentioned in this chapter that if we are to use revelation as a moral guide, we must know first what is to count as revelation. God made us and the entire world. Because of that he has an absolute claim on our obedience.

It was also stated in this chapter that many philosophers have felt that morality rests on its own perfectly sound footing, be it reason, human nature or natural sentiments. The divine command theory faces other problems as well. Morality is said to be influenced by religion. The author also mentioned that morality is social. It governs relationships among people, defining our responsibilities to others and theirs to us. Morality is said to provide standards that we rely in gauging interactions with our family, lovers, friends, fellow citizens and even strangers. Also, it was mentioned in this chapter that, morality is indeed social since we are subject to criticism by others for our actions. We discuss with the people around us what we should do and hear from them if our decisions are acceptable. Blame and praise are central feature of morality.

The author mentioned in this chapter that morality is inherently social. It depends on socially learned language. It is learned from interactions with others and governs interactions with others in society. God might play a role in moral reflection and conscience. For the religious person, conscience would almost certainly include the imagined reaction of God along with the reactions of others who might be affected by the action. For a religious person, morality and God’s will cannot be separated.

It was mentioned in this chapter that, our ordinary thinking about morality is full of assumptions that we almost never question. There are these sceptical views that were suggested by Glaucon that have come to be knows as psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism, as mentioned in this chapter, is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that the only motive that anyone ever act is self-interest. Glaucon’s point here is that even if people act the way that benefits others, people are motivated to do that because of the belief that if they act this way it will be for their own advantage. In contrast, Ethical egoism is a normative view about how men ought to act. It was stated in this chapter that, regardless of how men behave, they have no obligation to do anything except what is in their own interests.

The author, James Rachels, mentioned also about the confusion of selfishness with self-interests. The author said that it is not the same. He also mentioned that, selfish behavior is a behavior that ignores the interests of others. Also, the author mentioned about the fallacy regarding every action done is either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives. In example that he gave, he said that a man who continues to smoke cigarettes even after knowing the connection of cigars with cancer, is said that he’s not acting from self-interest. Self-interest would dictate that he quit smoking. He continues smoking because of the pleasure of it. The author said that what the man shows us is the undisciplined pleasure-seeking.

switcher

wufoo

Facelist ko. =)

Poly9