The significant rise of enlightenment in the in the field of philosophy has given rise to criticism of some major branches. Such criticisms indicate that preceding philosophers may have established various ontological and epistemological doctrines without paying much attention to the validity and legitimacy of such arguments. Kantian philosophy, for instance, served to evaluate and criticize some of the main frames of philosophy. The main intentions of Kant involved giving legitimacy to the claims of knowledge as well as building an objective moral framework. Therefore, Kant is well known for his philosophy of morality, which influenced the contemporary European society on a wider perspective. However, Kant shifted the basis for morality from god to human reason prompting Nietzsche to criticize Kantian morality. As such, Nietzsche developed plausible arguments that criticized Kant’s moral agent. He claims that Kant does not in any way attempt to question the laws of morality but accepts the modified version of Christian codes of morality in a dogmatic way. Therefore, I will analyze two points that Nietzsche used to criticize Kantian morality; the concept of the true world and genealogy of morals.
Criticism of the Concept of the True World
Nietzsche criticizes Kant for thinking that the world is fixed because it is captured through the concepts using reason hence leading to the claim that senses are deceptive. This is because Kant believes that mind gives form to objects of experience thus implying that objects of experienced are analyzed based on categories. However, Nietzsche disputes this philosophical claim by pointing out that reason is not a tool that can be used for knowledge as claimed by Kant. Therefore, Nietzsche believes that reason can interpret reality by use of concepts. Nietzsche further emphasizes that the senses do not deceive when they show change.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Alternatively, he claims that it is reason that deceives when it interprets and conceives through fixed concepts and gives an impression of no change. When knowledge is thought to be taking place in reason, a problem of knowledge arises as opposed to when senses are utilized because senses do not perceive by concepts as do reason. Therefore, Nietzsche refutes reason and claims that it misleads in terms of perception and interpretation of knowledge. Furthermore, Nietzsche believes that the senses can intuit the experience without utilizing the concepts of the mind. The intuitions are thereafter interpreted under fixed concepts when making judgments about experiences according to Nietzsche. It is on the basis of the concept of the true world that Nietzsche differs with Kant. Therefore, defining the true world as transcendent is considered by Nietzsche as superstitious. When referring to Kant’s philosophy Nietzsche terms the idea of interpreting the world as mere appearance amounts to idiosyncrasy.
Criticism of the Genealogy Morals Aspect
The approaches of Kant and Nietzsche regarding the origin of morals differ significantly. Kant was the first of the two philosophers to develop his version of the theory morals. Kant points out that those particular values possess an intrinsic value by themselves. Therefore, Kant claimed that duty carried with itself the absolute necessity. At this point, Nietzsche disagrees fundamentally with Kant regarding his moral account. Therefore, Nietzsche went on to ask the question as to why and how the values stated by Kant came to have their value.
In evaluating Kant’s argument, it is important to point out that Kant determined the moral value of any particular action by evaluating the fundamental principle that lay behind it irrespective of the consequences associated with the action. Therefore, Kant placed the will as the main force behind the action and pointed out that it had nothing to do with the associated outcome. The concept of duty was the guiding power of his theory of morals implying that any action performed strictly from duty is considered moral (Holtman, 2002). Therefore, the action should be done strictly in accordance with duty without any hidden motive. Kant points out that an individual should not be pushed by individual selfish desires to do an action. This indicates that a moral choice is determined by the force behind it. Therefore, a moral choice should be made purely by the action being just but not in consideration of the associated profits or losses caused by the action. The moral being has to be rational in order to act morally and the principle of the will is behind all the actions as a determinant of morality (Kant et al, 2003). Considering Kant’s argument, it would be true to observe that the will is at liberty to act by reason.
Nietzsche refuses to accept the idea that a moral human being is an entity enjoying autonomy and freedom free from inclinations. Nietzsche asks the question as to why duty is considered an a priori value. Alternatively, Nietzsche gives a contrary genealogy of moral valuation. Nietzsche points out that noble and ignoble is the dividing factor regarding morality (Nietzsche, 2003). According to Nietzsche, the noble role was played by powerful warriors and lords in early society. Therefore, the nobility was the first to develop its moral values by reinstating their own individual ideals regarding morality. Anything that was short of their ideals was considered immoral. For instance, if strength was considered by the noble to be good, the weakness was seen to be bad. As a result of the high virtues set by the noble, it was hard to attain them. As such, people of resentment were born according to Nietzsche. The people who could not attain the values set by the noble constituted a lower class that set their own ideals that they could attain. The birth of people of resentment gave rise to ignoble values, which were set as a result of resentment. This group of people constituted the ignoble. Therefore, Nietzsche gives an account of two sets of morals that emerged. The first set comprised the noble, which constituted good or bad. The second set comprised the ignoble, which constituted good and evil.
The two differing genealogies of morals epitomized the disagreement between Kant and Nietzsche regarding the origin of moral. Unfortunately, Nietzsche does not offer an alternative set of morals to substitute those of Kant.
Nietzsche Critique of Liberal Democracy
Nietzsche’s critique of liberal democracy is similar to his criticism of Kantian morality in the way he paints the nature of man as negative. In his version of genealogy of morals, he points out that humans are not promise keeping animals. Nietzsche is against the notion that liberalism acts to defend the rights and interest of individuals (Grimm, 1974). On the contrary, he claims that democracy only acts to protect the rights of the majority. He cites that there exists no reconciliation between the rights of the minority and those of the majority. Alternatively, he advocated for the end of slave mentality and emphasized the need to raise autonomous individuals. Furthermore, he does not values equality, an ideal always associated with liberalism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, philosophers have contributed to the wealth of knowledge in the society through their logical arguments that shaped the society in a fundamental way. Emerging philosophers normally strive to question the arguments of the preceding ones in order to evaluate validate them. As such, Nietzsche developed plausible arguments that criticized Kant’s moral agent. He claims that Kant does not in any way attempt to question the laws of morality but accepts the modified version of Christian codes of morality in a dogmatic way. Therefore, Nietzsche contributed significantly to the field of philosophy by arguing out the claims made by Kant in terms of morality.
References
Grimm, R. H. (1974). Knowledge and Power: Nietzsche's Will to Power as an Epistemological Principle.
Holtman, S. (2009). Autonomy and the kingdom of ends. The Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics , 102-117.
Kant, I., Wood, A. W., & Schneewind, J. B. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals . Yale University Press.
Nietzsche, F. (2003). Beyond good and evil . Penguin.
