Monday, November 28, 2011
Genealogy - Preface
Most of us have certain moral inclinations that we hold onto very dearly, and most of the time the things which we speak of in passionate terms are spoken in moral language. In our most heated conversations on topics such as politics, many of us stand strongly behind our opinions because we believe them to be morally right. Most people believe that murder is absolutely wrong and very few will try to justify unwarranted murder, but what are we talking about when we talk about what is good/bad and right/wrong? What is truth? We like to believe that there is an absolute Truth somewhere out there in the world that can back up our moral feelings – people argue that such and such is wrong because people are sentient beings capable of suffering and causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, because of some God who is the origin of all essential values and God declared that killing is wrong, etc. Whatever the rationale is, often we speak as if there is an absolute truth to what we say. Some even argue that moral language can be translated and applied to a distant culture and/or time, and many insist on holding onto this notion of an absolute truth because they fear that to suggest that truth as something that varies in accordance to a particular set of values/language of a particular time and culture is to reduce that which we hold on to as having moral weight to nothingness. But are the ones who insist on the existence of some absolute truth trying to assert dominance of power? In Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche is addressing the easy attitude some people take towards truth, as if truth lies in some essence in the world and can be guaranteed. Nietzsche shakes the reader out of her comfort zone by suggesting that values are invented under certain conditions (5) so it does not have some absolute origin/Truth it can fall back on. It appears that many of our moral language, or just language in general which we use to describe the world around us, evolves over time. How we understand the world today is very different from our cultural predecessor in history, yet if look backwards in time we see a gradual evolution of language and values, so morality is something like Darwinian evolution; it is a historical process, yet it does not have a rational end/goal because there is no origin/purpose, and its direction is as random as the particular events that shapes them. Nietzsche notes that the language/values which we use to look outward into the world and by which we judge the world has not been examined. As Nietzsche said, we need a “critique of moral values” (7) as “people have taken the value of these 'values' as given, as factual, as beyond all questioning”. To Nietzsche, this critique is important because he sees the system of morality during his time as one that is ultimately detrimental to society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found that the first thing that caught my eye about Ethan's post, which he immediately addresses after mentioned it, the term "unwarranted murder". My first thought was who decides what constitutes an unwarranted murder? In court cases, crimes of passion are sometimes subject to hang jury results because half of the jurors will see the case and decide the action was indeed an unwarranted murder, despite the reason. On the other hand, the other half of jurors will believe it was a justified homicide based on the same exact facts given to the ladder jurors.
ReplyDeleteAnd this brings me to my second observation, I've seen a trend in class discussions that groups all individuals who rely on faith or religion, to strictly believe in absolute truths. I feel that assumption is completely unfair and limited. The parameters in which we speak of religion in absolutes is a fitting description of fundamentalists. I think it's possible to believe in God, his existence and his teachings with blind faith and not be categorized as weak or fearful. A person can have beliefs in parts of concepts and not necessarily need to agree with all aspects or facets of said beliefs. Morality is a complex idea that most certainly could be detrimental to society, then and now, but it does not mean people will not still strive to live by a morality code, whetherbit be personal or societal. I think morality comes from circumstances and experiences.
Ethan's post brings to the fore most of what I got from reading Nietzsche's preface. It makes sense, according to Nietzsche, to want to critique the moral values of his time because for Nietzsche, as he saw it, the philosophies of his predecessors were showing its age. It is rather daring for Nietzsche to go about and bring Truth--in this case, moral truths--down from its golden seat. The only problem--or perhaps it is not a problem but a sense of uneasiness--in questioning these so called truths is that, in the end, after such examination, what does one hold on to? If moral truths are nothing more than the product of their times, is there such a thing as being in the wrong in assuming such truths? Perhaps it is the philosophers task to detach and look the culture in which he/she lives in, in order to assess the state of his times.
ReplyDeleteMorality is a very hard topic to critique as it changes culture by culture, state by state, and even person by person. Maria mentions that morality is based on experiences, but I believe it is taught to us in schools and by the communities in which we grow up. This is mostly taught to us in the forms of good and bad action. We are taught those who do good are good, and those who do wrong are bad. But does this always hold true in the grand scheme? According to Nieztsche there are many possibilities, some more likely than others, on who really are the good and bad in society. I believe there is no way to determine this line between good and bad people without defining the circumstances around their actions.
ReplyDeleteBy: Linna Aguilar
ReplyDeleteAccording to Nietzsche we can critique moral values by having “Some training in history and philology” §3 p.5 By knowing a history of the words – their etymology, a critique of morality can be done. By understanding the history of the words used to describe the values we can understand how the current values came to be; we will than be able to understanding the effects or consequences that come out of those values. Once we learn the history of how the words were applied to “good and evil” we will have an understanding of how moral values function and evaluate them to see if they are enhancing our lives.
What Nietzsche found out is that values are determined by the will to power that is from the institutions that have the power to decide what values are. The effects and consequences that come from these values become perspective, that is that values are limited to the partial view that the institutions say they are.
Nietzsche also states that we know so much about the world that is about science and history; but we do not know ourselves. He writes about this on the first page of the preface. He states, “We are unknown to ourselves, we knowers:” We do not know who we are even though we know other philosophers very well. He goes on, “We remain strange to ourselves out of necessity, we do not understand ourselves,. . . we are not ‘knowers’ when it comes to ourselves. . .” We learn and try to understand so much about the world, how words are used, history and what institutions tell us what morality is; however, it is difficult for us to come up with our own answers and to explore our own “secret gardens.”
I wonder what Nietzsche means exactly about what that necessity is for us to “remain strangers to ourselves”
It’s interesting that you make the statement that few of us would defend ‘unwarranted murder’. Many of the citizens of all the various nations around the world proudly celebrate the wars in which they take part. Many of us hold and praise the soldiers who volunteer for combat above those who were drafted. The soldiers who volunteer make the conscious decision to go to war to ‘defend’ their nation. But, it is clear that wars like Vietnam are not defensive wars and purely offensive wars to counter a small perceived tip in the global balance of power. To make the conscious decision to go to war is to also make the conscious decision to put yourself in a situation where you will murder. Many snipers don’t murder to defend; they murder for an offensive purpose. In modern day, those who arm predator drone missile strikes also murder offensively. These murders aren’t warranted. They weren’t demanded nor are they justified. They were consciously chosen and accepted by those who perform them. Yet, through nationalism many of us reward and praise those who murder in the name of an idea or group. Nietzsche was very aware of the growing wave of German nationalism during his life. He wrote against it as foolish and dangerous in many of his other writings and personal letters. I think it’s clear that he would be highly critical of neo-conservative American nationalism as it holds murder, religion, and exclusion as some of its highest values.
ReplyDeleteI am most intrigued by Nietzsche's notion that reason and language are historical . I believe his argument, that we need a historical account to explore the intentions behind morality, is a worthy endeavor. I feel that it is important to understands language with both historical and cultural lenses, for example, the association of "bad" with black, dark and chaotic. To clarify with an example, in Toni Morrison's Lliterary critique "Playing in the Dark," she illustrates how western literature subconsciously represses people of black color by associating black with characteristics like unfree, dark, chaotic, evil, promiscuous, savage and stupid. This type of morality justified European colonization and slavery. Although I do agree with Nietzche that is important to look at the links between words and how they are used (and how they affect morality), I still do believe their is some a priori rational judgement in morality. Although Nietzsche stresses that we are animals that act with instinct, I believe we are human because of our unique ability for rational judgement and think we can may rational morality-based judgements even though it may be difficult. In the "Nicomachean Ethics," Aristotle highlights that the rational function of the soul is unique to humans. Aristotle argues that happiness rests in what is unique to human nature – the mind being our “natural ruler” (10.7). Moral virtue, however, is a natural disposition of the mind to choose intermediate (right) actions (against our passions), such as courage, generosity, and truth, over the vices of excess and defect, such as recklessness and cowardice, extravagance and stinginess, and boastfulness and self-depreciation. Aristotle explains that it is difficult to be in the mean because of our appetitive and desiring functions (2.9; 1109A). Although there is definitely a perspectivalism that exists in the history of morality, I do believe we can judge right and wrong and recognize when values are being corrupted, for example, in Nazism.
ReplyDeleteMorals are agreed values within a given society. However, the origin of modern day morals, and even moral in general, are completely taken for granted. Why exactly do our current moral exist? Where did it come from? Absolutists argue that morals are innate ideas in which they are what they are. Those with the simplest of logical minds can clearly see the circular argument in those words and are clearly unacceptable. As Nietzsche notes, “we need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined” (7). It is clear that Nietzsche is not satisfied with simple given moral matters for he insists on evaluating morality in search for their practical existence.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche imagines the idea of a good man that never reaches his full potential and it is his “goodness”, which hinders him. In such a case, is the man’s goodness a desirable trait? This seems to be a rhetorical question in which the answer is clearly “no.” Morality, it seems for Nietzsche, exist only as a practical mean of assisting humans in flourishing to their highest capabilities.