Friedrich Nietzsche

¶ … Nietzsche's philosophy of nobility, and why the noble person must be aggressive in order to be successful. Criticize this philosophy by developing a scenario where it would fail in the human services workplace. Only the strong shall survive." "You're fired." In today's business climate, it is both popular and attractive on a visceral level to think that aggression rather than compassion is the best philosophy for a human being to employ in his or her daily life, to achieve success -- even if one is not Donald Trump.

Many years ago, the German philosopher Nietzsche stressed that in a world where God was "dead" and traditional ethical rules of conduct had been shown to be false, humans must assume their responsibilities to set their own, harsh and noble rules that advanced their own personal interests in an individualistic fashion. Only though such aggression and individualism could humans eschew the often narrow and mindless view of the collective.

Nietzsche's idea of the superman, however, presupposes the idea that an individual, working alone, can come up with better ideas and standards of conduct than an organization as a whole. This is contrary to the expressed ethos of most human service workplaces, of course, whose aim is to enforce particular standards of tolerance and mutual respect that have been decided upon by others, by the heads of an organization and indeed by the law of the land.

Also, the ideals of the German philosopher are also not congruent with the creative experiences of many individuals in human services and other sectors of the business world as well. Often, organizational behavior indicates that individuals working alone, in isolation, merely come up with reconstructed ideas, but by bouncing ideas off one another they learn new and exciting perspectives, enhance their worldview, and also enhance their personal standards of nobility and sense of right, productive, and moral conduct.

Question Detail Peter Singer's philosophy on how to help the needy and consider how a philosophy of giving would be a positive virtuous ethic or one that takes away from our effectiveness as a person. Singer feels that we should give a definite percentage of our wealth to charity. Do you agree or disagree. Why? Think of the three-dollar latte you had with your lunch.

Instead of spending money on your own personal pleasure, you could have used that money to send a contribution to UNICEF and feed the hungry stomach of a starving child, perhaps save that child's life. The ethical philosopher Peter Singer has suggested that all human beings approach their daily lives and decision-making in such a fashion. He suggests, as a remedy to the affluence of American society, that all individuals give part of their daily income to charity.

Singer's ideas are important in that, when one questions one's daily pleasures in such a rigorous fashion, one constantly asks one's self -- do I really need this? Is this as great a necessity as food or medicine is for a child in an area of need? But to categorically state that all affluent or even ordinary human beings 'owe' a certain percentage of their work to charity presupposes that there is not other social needs human beings must fulfill beyond that of basic necessities, such as.