“What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man". According to Nietzsche, moral systems are attempts of inadequate individuals in our society trying to keep strong individuals from exercising their creativity and passion. Every human being strives to become a master over all that one can accomplish. To do so they must utilize “the will to power”. He believed that “the will to power” will accumulate pure happiness if one was to go out into the world and get what they longed for. On the other hand, Socrates believed that in order to be truly happy one must only be morally good and if one were to do evil, one will never find true happiness. Saying this, Nietzsche's approach on defining a “good person” …show more content…
In reality, it is going to be the money or even the food one steals that is going to satisfy them. One can be filthy rich and have all the money in the world to travel anywhere at any given time and do as one desires. They will end up with happiness because at that point one doesn’t care if they're morally good as long as they get what they want. Socrates does have a point, but I do not agree with his statement. One can do a good deed for say, they could have paid for someone’s groceries and they will be short 50 dollars, but one did it out of the goodness of their heart. They didn’t care if karma will come back to them or what benefit they had from doing this. At night this may put a smile on their face, but that smile will not cure one’s hunger. When one is starving to death these good deeds aren't going to bring happiness. A mother may have to steal in order to feed her hungry children since she is unable to provide the necessaries using money. The act of stealing from someone else is considered evil but, I am positive that the mother will be truly happy to see her children be healthy rather than dying of