Kant vs. Nietzsche: Two Contrasting Views on Morality

Introduction

Throughout history, many philosophers have evaluated the concept of morality and discussed many ideas about its origin. While some believe morality to be born of reason and rationality, others are more critical of the concept. This paper presents two views of morality — those of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche — and discusses how each philosopher justifies his viewpoint. Additionally, this paper will show that while Kant's concept of morality is more positive than Nietzsche's, it is Nietzsche's view that is more consistent with reality.

Kant's Theory of Morality and the Categorical Imperative

According to Kant, the same principles that apply to reason also give way to an equal application in dealing with the problems of moral philosophy. Generally speaking, Kant believed that moral judgments deal with how the world should be, not how the world truly is. Because of this, morality cannot be derived from experience, since experience can only tell humans how things really are. Kant assumed, therefore, that morality must be a priori, since moral principles are independent of the true state of the world around us (Kant, "Preface").

Kant follows this argument to define what he considers to be a "moral act." According to him, for an action to be morally worthy it must be performed out of Duty — that is, because the act is the right thing to do in light of moral law. Other motivators for moral acts, such as the enjoyment of the act or an independent end goal, do not qualify as moral worth. Thus, only actions performed out of Duty, and in respect of moral law, are morally worthy (Kant, "Section 1...").

Kant then lays out his theory of reasoning for moral law, displaying the principles of practical reason. He describes his view that the laws of reason are a series of imperatives telling us what we should do. There are two types of imperatives in his theory: hypothetical imperatives, which tell persons what to do in order to reach a particular end, and categorical imperatives, which tell us what to do unconditionally, regardless of the end goal. Because Kant sees morality as a priori and therefore independent of all will or preferences, the argument follows that morality must be a categorical imperative. As such, morality — like all other categorical imperatives — tells us to act on principles formulated in the Formula of Universal Law of the Categorical Imperative, which states that persons should act according to the idea that their own actions will become part of Universal Law. Kant further implies, through the Law of Nature, that people should act with the understanding that their will could make their action a Universal Law of Nature (Kant, "Section 2...").

Kant then discusses a test that allows people to identify the duties they have and which actions are morally permissible. The test follows a path of rational reasoning similar to a standard argument. First, one must form a maxim that combines the action with the reason for it — for example, "I will lie to my father in order to obtain money." Next, one forms the corresponding "Law of Nature," applying the action to universal law — for example, "Everyone who needs money lies to obtain it." Third, one imagines a world in which everyone obeyed this "law" and pictures themselves lying to their father to obtain money. Last, one asks whether one could will the action at the same time as willing the resulting state of affairs, which usually produces a contradiction. In the above example, if everyone lied to get money, the individual seeking to do so would experience only denial, since any lender would already know he was lying. Kant proposes that if the original maxim passes the Categorical Imperative test, the act is moral; if not, it is forbidden (Kant, "Section II...").

Kant continues with the concept that all different formulations of the Categorical Imperative are equivalent to one another, in that each would forbid and permit the same actions. He proposes the Formula of Humanity, which holds that all people should treat others as an end in themselves and never merely as a means to an end. By doing so, Kant believes that people respect one another as rational beings. Further, Kant's Kingdom of Ends Formulation states that as rational beings we must always regard ourselves as legislators in a Kingdom of Ends, by virtue of free will. By this, Kant supposes that if we can think of ourselves as regulating Universal Law through our maxims, we should think of moral motivation as autonomous (Kant, "Section II...").

Kant's Concepts of Freedom and Autonomy

Kant claims to establish human autonomy through his argument that will belongs to rational beings and that freedom is the property of the causality of the will. Freedom is thus independent of any factors other than the will itself. Since humans are rational beings, they are free to choose between different options. Kant further proposes that since humans inevitably think of themselves as members of the world of understanding rather than the world of sense, they are therefore free and, as such, autonomous (Kant, "Section III...").

In summary, Kant believes morality to be a priori and holds that its origin can be found in reason, which gives us the Universal Laws. With this idea in mind, human beings — as rational, morally governed individuals — are autonomous and entitled to respect and dignity. The end result is similar to the ideas of Plato, in that full knowledge of moral behavior is grounded in rational knowledge of the world, and our actions should align with the good of everyone, or the Universal Good. Both Kant and Plato see morality as independent of external forces, and both believe acts of morality must be motivated by "doing what we should do."

Nietzsche's Genealogical Account of Morality

Furthermore, Kant's Categorical Imperative tests only serve to prove immorality if one accepts the premise that a resulting contradiction indicates an immoral act. One could argue that even immoral acts do not necessarily end in contradiction, and could therefore appear moral under Kant's framework. Kant also assumes that humans consider themselves members of the world of understanding rather than the world of sense, subject to the laws of nature — a claim that is arguable at best.

Kant also neglects to explain how freedom is possible given our dual status as heteronomous individuals in relation to the laws of nature and as autonomous beings in relation to the world of understanding. Since Kant believes we can have no knowledge of the realm in which we are free, he holds that there are no contradictions in this concept. In short, only if one accepts Kant's assumptions about freedom, autonomy, the Categorical Imperative tests, and our lack of knowledge of the world of understanding can one accept his view of morality.

While Kant's theory is based on the idea that morality is a priori, Nietzsche's theory is rooted in the beginnings of nihilism. According to Nietzsche, there are no absolute values and no universal rules for human beings. If there is any truth in life, he supposes, that truth can only be discovered by those who disregard everything traditionally considered "good" and instead break free of the standard Christian moral view. If humans dare to go against the standard ascetic ideal and instead live in a world without God and without moral law, they can live a life of personal integrity and honest self-interest.

Nietzsche begins his argument by examining standard theories of morality. Rather than attempting to find a rational foundation for moral belief, he argues that we should be suspicious of any moral justification and instead look to the origins of those morals (Nietzsche, "Prologue").

Nietzsche then provides his own account of the development of current moral concepts. According to his account, the word "good" originally applied only to those people with social and political power, and served simply to allow those people to live the life they wanted by force. Nietzsche believed that the moral concepts of his time had instead become Christian in content and origin, due to an uprising by a caste of people provoked by resentment of their "natural" superiors. According to Nietzsche, this caste created an alternative set of moral values designed to appeal to the "sheep" of society — those unable to compete in politics or power (Nietzsche, Essay 1).

In this "slave morality," as Nietzsche describes it, the values of master morality are inverted, which undermines the natural order. He believes the natural order was one in which the strong continue to succeed at the cost of the weaker members of society. In response to their lowered status in this order, the subordinate caste used their hatred, revenge, and resentment to create morals that would weaken the master class. This "slave revolt," according to Nietzsche, turned acts that should be admired — such as the exercise of force — into "evil" acts, while acts that went against natural law — such as self-sacrifice and forgiveness — were recast as "good." It created a set of moral values organized around "good vs. evil" rather than "good vs. bad," understood in moral rather than aesthetic terms (Nietzsche, Essays I & II).

Conclusion: Comparing the Two Theories

Kant and Nietzsche both sought to find the origin of morality and to understand the basis on which moral law is formed. While Kant's theory is grounded in assumed truths, Nietzsche's is rooted in the fundamental realities of human and natural evolution. This in itself lends greater credibility to Nietzsche's argument. Additionally, while Kant's view of morality is optimistic — leading one to believe that humans are moral, autonomous creatures — Nietzsche's viewpoint is unfortunately more grounded in reality.