Free Essay Sample on Moral Philosophies

Introduction

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche's philosophies are considered the transition between traditional approaches to philosophy and the new era philosophy on morality and rationality. Both philosophers thought life irrational and used different techniques from their predecessors and believed the system was isolated and full of inequalities. In their philosophical approaches to morality, the rationale is considered an important aspect but cannot be regarded as important in determining religion and societal degradation (Kierkegaard, Bhagavad-Gita.). The two philosophers have varied characteristics in handling their views but believe that objectivity is an impossible aspect in discussing morality and Christian related elements in society. These aspects can be important in the modern and contemporary world through various components depending on the relevance and state of conditions that exist in society. This essay discusses Kierkegaard and Nietzsche's philosophies, an argument on their vision, and a discussion of these aspects' relevance in the modern and contemporary world.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Comparison of Philosophies

Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche considered life to be irrational and were different thinkers who did not follow the previous systematic philosophical approaches by their predecessors. In this aspect, they were thought to stand on common grounds as they both realized that no system of philosophy operated in isolation of its inequalities. In this case, they considered any subjective viewpoint to be biased; hence objectivity is almost impossible in discussing aspects of morality (Lippitt). Additionally, they were obsessed with the state of affairs globally, and both recognized that God no longer exists in present day religious incarnations. In this case, in contemporary western society culture, men and women go around their work and activities in a way that suggests there is no God to govern how they run their affairs. Yet, they all live proclaiming the existence of a powerful God whom they proclaim their devotion when questioned about religion. Therefore, both philosophers found a significant lapse of moral authenticity and found the elements from the soul's concept to be a barrier to one's true spiritual potential.

Nonetheless, to resolve aspects that differentiate people on moral lines, they were not divergent in their quest for a cure. In this case, their moral constitution theories were based on conflicting ideologies where Kierkegaardís was on Christianity and Nietzsche’s philosophies based on the autonomy and elements of individualism. In a comparison of the proposed solution to this level, societal dysfunction included Kierkegaard's suggestion to renew Christian belief, therefore a chance to embrace teachings of the New Testament and the introduction of a dynamic living faith (Angier). On the other hand, an analysis of Nietzsche suggested one external faith that guided people, on the other hand, the need to discourage dominant ethos and create a new and improved naturalistic set of values that guide religion and related activities.

Roots of Divergence

Initially, both philosophers had an idea of the moral decay in society, including the irrational nature of life and the corruption of religious practices. In this case, in their vision, they believed that aspects are determined through subjective approaches to morality and played no emphasis on the means, of course, implemented (Fitzpatrick, Melissa). Hence, a significant shift in individual visions between the two philosophers where Nietzsche versioned a complete disillusionment with religious aspects while Kierkegaard vision in faith in the existence of one powerful God.

Therefore, through Kierkegaard’s concept of morality, commitment to the principles become an integral part of human life, and the need to possess a stable self-identity. On the other hand, Nietzsche had a varied perspective on the concept where he believed that commitment leads to dependence; therefore, loss of independence leads to loss of identity (Lippitt). Therefore, Nietzsche argued that Kierkegaardís visions to be exploitative of personal growth elements in opposition to an individual would power. In this case, he envisioned Kierkegaardís philosophy to be fixated on ideas beyond its range of importance and can inhibit an individual's potential.

Conclusion

In the modern and contemporary world, with the success levels in modern science, we are forced to examine the same questions posed by the two philosophers in varied dimensions on the concept. Hence, these aspects discuss elements of morality to appeal to faith and metaphysical reality. In this case, they advocate for the need for objectivity in discussing Christianity and related components (Lippitt). Therefore, in the absence of religious aspects, science advocates for developing philosophies and moral standards by both societies and individuals to fill the gap left by the various discussion elements. In this case, aspects of morality can be rooted deep down individual beliefs (Kierkegaard, Bhagavad-Gita.). In this case, subjective approaches come in need to fill the gap left by religious-related discussions. In a logical aspect, morality can be considered a problematic factor that encompasses religion, personal standards, and logic to determine the values that hold the society together.

Works Cited

Angier, Tom PS. Either Kierkegaard/or Nietzsche: Moral philosophy in a new key. Routledge, 2016.

Fitzpatrick, Melissa. "A Nietzschean Ethics of Care?." misReading Nietzsche (2018): 88.

Kierkegaard, Bhagavad-Gita. "3Dialogue of perspectives: Nietzsche, Kant." On Moral Law and Quest for Selfhood. Routledge India, 2016. 92-123.

Lippitt, John. "Either Kierkegaard/Or Nietzsche: Moral Philosophy in a New Key." Ars Disputandi 7.1 (2007): 128-135.

Miles, Thomas P. Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche on the Best Way of Life: A New Method of Ethics. Springer, 2013.