Plato and Nietzsche agree about the role that appetites and animal instincts play a role in human society. Plato portrays the appetitive part as being directed at basic objects, specifically food, drink, and sex. However, each of these three is necessary desire. “The desire for delicacies is also necessary to the extent that it’s beneficial and well-being,” (559b). Plato continues to say that the appetites are made moderate by performing moderate actions. Socrates defines moderation by: self control by 1) obeying the rulers and 2) ruling over the pleasures of food, drink, and sex; also known as not getting carried away with said pleasures. The appetites featured in Socrates’ discussion of moderation, justice, and the best constitution is as followed: appetites are selfish pleasures and also the most …show more content…
Moderation is considered the “unity of the virtue” thesis. With the lack of moderation, it turns into justice. When referring to justice, it is the agreement that everyone having multiple aims is bad and leads to deterioration. Justice is each part doing its own work and not the work of another. Justice is considered the “virtue of aristocratic city”. Finally, the best constitution, the best constitution is not able to become a reality and therefore inevitably deteriorates. When Nietzsche talks about the animal instincts that feature the slave revolt, bad conscience, and the ascetic ideal, he is referring to that our animal instincts of life became useless. In order to survive, humans had to rely on their conscious mind rather than their unconscious instincts. Nietzsche argues that there are two different fundamental types of morality: 1) “master morality” and 2) “slave morality”. Slave morality had values of things such as compassion and kindness, while master morality valued pride and nobility. Master morality weighed actions on a scale of good/bad consequences,