Aquinas Vs Nietzsche On Morality

833 Words4 Pages

Morality are principles concerning the distinction of good and bad or right and wrong behavior, that influences behavior and worldly views. From different perspectives, morality can be can viewed as being of one 's own conviction, or a natural principle that we should succumb to by the “laws” of nature. Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche are two well known philosopher that twist morality into those groups of morals of being “taste” or “truth”. Aqunas sees morality as a truth that consist of things that contribute or disrupts the nature of things. While Nietzsche viewpoint is directed upon that morality is merely opinion and that “might makes right.” These two conflicting ideas has become an issue in the world today. For example in the …show more content…

I believe their are certain natural principles that lie naturally within us and within the world. For example in a television show entitled Fringe, the main character has conflicting thoughts on whether to enter an alternate universe to save is dying,doppelganger, son. Doing this, he would disrupt the components of both universes and risk billions of lives to save one. He ends up crossing over to the alternate universe and taking the doppelganger son, while both universes suffers heavily for his wrong decision. In this instance it is shown that even though natural principles/laws can’t be seen, the effects are still felt based on our good and bad decisions. Supporting why when a wicked action is done the feeling of grief and misery is discerned. Also the existence of the conscience is directly linked to the choices that are made and how it is directed with …show more content…

For natural law, the advantages are that the idea of natural law is common sense and is already well known in the morals people already have today and the presents of the consciences. Since the morals Thomas points out are already known within the world, it is more likely that people are more prone to believing something that is familiar. While the conscience, for Aquinas, is the act of applying our knowledge of good and evil to what we do and how the conscience is the realization that what we might do or have done is good or not (Thomistic). While the disadvantages are that: their is no tangible evidence, no universal agreement, and it restricts freedom. Whereas Nietzsche pros are that they are no moral restrictions with more freedom and more descriptive. While his cons are that he logically contradicts by saying that their is “no truth, only perspective”. Which brings up the question of, if their is no truth then what makes what Nietzsche is saying

Open Document