Richard Taylor, an ethicist said, “Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are truly just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning (Ethics, Faith, and Reason 7).” Does this effect that religion is the only way to explain morality? Friedrich Nietzsche would argue that morality itself wasn’t necessary. Merce Cardus said, “Envy is – Nietzsche recognised – an essential part of life. Yet the lingering effects of Christianity generally teaches to feel ashamed of our envious feelings. They seem an indication of evil. So we hide them from ourselves and others. Yet there is nothing wrong with envy, maintained Nietzsche, so long as we use it as a guide to what we truly want. Every person who makes us envious should be seen as an indication of what we could one day become.” Nietzsche would say that envy just shows you who you can be. He would say that envy wasn’t immoral, in fact he would say it was beneficial. You can identify that ideas along such lines would cause an uproar.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a
…show more content…
One of his main ideas was the Overman. He believed that "A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at five or six great men-yes, and then to get around them" (Beyond Good and Evil 126). He believed that an Overman or superman, is a person who uses the force of their will to become great, and that everyone else was destined to serve him. His cardinal example of an Overman was Napoleon Bonaparte, the great French general and emperor who almost conquered Europe. He said, "When Napoleon wanted to bring Europe into an association of states (the only human being who was strong enough for that!)," (Walter Arnold Kaufmann 315) that he was a superman, and that he should not have been defeated. Nietzsche’s view of history was that it was a string of great