There are many different types of moral theory. One, the divine command theory, states that the moral code by which we should abide comes down to us from the ten commandments of God. There is also Kant's view that reason dictates the commandments of morality. The moral law, according to Kant, is derivable from our own rational faculties and, not surprisingly, God's ten commandments can be found along with other maxims in our rationality. However, Nietzsche ascribed to neither of these views. Born in 1844, Nietzsche was influenced by Darwin and philosophers such as Schopenhauer. His moral theory mirrored more that of Hume's in sticking to the tenants of naturalism than it resembled deontological theories such as Kant's. The 18th century philosopher David Hume argued that morality is built on natural sympathy for others. John claims that, like Hume, Nietzsche was a naturalist. However, Ken remains uncertain about the validity of this claim. As far as he was taught, especially in graduate school, Nietzsche was a moral skeptic denying there were moral facts at all.
Brian Leiter defends the idea that Nietzsche was a naturalist. Like Hume, he thought that none of our beliefs are rationally justified. So, why believe in morality—or causation for that matter---if neither has rational foundation? While Hume and Nietzsche both try to speak to this problem, their accounts differ in their approaches. For Hume, we have a natural disposition for sympathy that leads us to accept our moral convictions. Nietzsche, however, has a psychological theory of morality that undermines our moral beliefs entirely. As John puts it, Nietzsche's story of morality explains why we have these beliefs without explaining whether or not they are true. At this point, Ken raises concern. Is Nietzsche saying that we shouldn't be moral? If this is the normative position he's advocating, how should we live without morality? The fear is that, once morality is undermined, anything and everything will...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document