Ethics Through the Eyes of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche

     Many different ideas on ethics have been discussed, especially among existentialists philosophers. Some of the philosophers that have contributed to this discussion had religious beliefs, and some were bluntly rejecting the existence of God. Regardless of their beliefs, they had their own way of approaching the issue of ethics. Although their paths were different, the goal was the same, which was to understand what it means to be a human being in this universe. Those philosophers had to touch on morality to understand the concept of existing and living in this world, as we are constantly interacting with each other as human beings (Daigle, 2006, p. 3). In this paper, I will focus on the ideas of Kirkegaard and Nietzsche on ethics.

     Kierkegaard believed being a human could not be explained by the natural animal descriptions of other thinkers, so he had to develop his own way of approaching the existence of human beings. In most of his works, he put out his thoughts in a literary way and did not  make clear arguments. His book “Fear and Trembling” is one of those examples. In this book, he states that the ethical is universal, which means “it applies at all times” (Kierkegaard, 1983, p. 54). According to Kierkegaard, there are three phases to a human life. The first one is the aesthetic phase, in which singularity is at the forefront and one moves towards pleasure. It is followed by the ethical phase, in which one starts being concerned about rights and wrongs, norms, and morals. Then comes the leap of faith. With this term comes a new phrase: “the knight of faith.” Kierkegaard illustrates this with Abraham. He discusses that since the ethical is universal, what we call the tragic hero, who sins for a greater good, is understandable and relatable (Kierkegaard, 1983, pp. 66–67). But Abraham’s story is different. In his case, there is an action performed that is universally accepted as wrong, immoral, and even irrational. There is no greater benefit to anyone after the said action is completed, but it is done in such a way that it is not considered a sin. It actually aims to do the opposite and prove his obedience to God, which is therefore not understandable for the rest of humankind. He then goes on to argue that Abraham must suspend moral standards in order to be justified and avoid being judged (Daigle, 2006, pp. 25–26). So, the whole thing comes down to this: To what extent are ethics applicable? From what point do they become universal, and when is it acceptable for ethics to be individual?

     There are some points about Kierkegaard’s ideology that I would like to comment on, such as the justification of Abraham, which starts with the suspension of moral norms. He had stated before that he considers ethics to be universal and the religious connections one has with God to be deeply individual and therefore singular. A question that comes to mind is if it is really acceptable to be in such a state of mind that is so focused on singularity in a society where it is impossible to not interact with anyone. In Kierkegaard’s illustration, Abraham is justified only when universal ethics are suspended, but that is if they can ever be suspended. Can we talk about a society where every individual makes their own rules and decides what is right or wrong on their own without the influence of anyone else? Would there even be a society then? What I understand from Kierkegaard’s argument is that he believes there could be limits to ethical norms’ applicability and, even though he states that the case of Abraham is an exception, anyone can become a knight of faith through an individual relationship with God. The will of God one must follow is beyond the ethical phase in any case, even though it might not always in contradiction to universal ethical values. But what I believe is: in a society with people from all kinds of backgrounds, the faith phase should not be the justification for anything.

     Moving on to Nietzsche, we can say he was a more radical philosopher and not religious, unlike Kierkegaard; thus, his approach to ethics differs greatly from Kierkegaard’s. His radicality starts with his questioning of the roots of the words “good” and “bad.” He thinks the  word “good” originated among “the powerful, the high-minded” because they felt like their actions were good towards the plebeians (Nietzsche, 2020, p. 22). Once they identified themselves as good, they named their opposites, “the low-minded,” bad, and that is how the words received their meanings (Nietzsche, 2020, pp. 22–26). He also discusses how the inversion of the words’ meanings has occurred. Especially after the arrival of the Jews, there was a wave of change that suggested the weak and the poor were the actual good ones. Those are mostly religious people, but their motives stem solely from opposition to aristocratic values. “It is fundamentally a reaction,” says Nietzsche (2020, p. 33). I believe his main point here is the fact that the meanings we give to words have been seen to have changed through the years, so there is no fixed meaning or truth. It is all given from a human perspective. This denying of a fixed truth was one of the main things that made both people and him call him radical.

     This ideology, too, I believe, has some points that are open to criticism. I agree with the idea that all meaning is given to words by human beings, which means we are the ones who create our reality. But I also believe in collective consciousness. Although the definitions might change, I do not believe the quality of the action changes in the end. Even if we were to call all good things bad and all sad things good, that would still not change the nature of the action. Even in The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche states that when the high-minded claimed themselves to be good, it was because of the result of their altruistic behavior (Nietzsche, 2020, p. 22). I think we can derive from this that a certain kind of behavior will be considered good, while the opposite will most of the time be bad. That is because we, as human beings, have an analogous way of thinking. So, there might not be a fixed truth that has not been set by humans, but there are things that the majority of people will accept or reject collectively because they have a shared understanding of what is being discussed. Of course, that does not mean the understandings of people could never be changed collectively, however, I also do not think this should mean everyone can have their own truths, because I do not think individual perspectives create truths either. But in the end, this just creates a paradox: truth is nothing but a perspective, but perspectives cannot create truths. This paradoxical way of thinking might lead us once again to the conclusion that there is no truth. I would like to differ and believe that human beings have their periodic truths when observed in context. 

     I have discussed two philosophers and their views on ethics. Kierkegaard believed everyone could have a unique and singular relationship with God that could be powerful enough to go beyond the limits of ethics, and Nietzsche believed in a non-existent truth and morality, to put it is quite simple terms. Both have convincing and non-convincing parts for me; still, both ideologies are worth thinking about to find a path in this life and give meaning to our  interactions with both us and the people
around us.

References

Daigle, C. (2006). Existentialist thinkers and ethics. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Kierkegaard, S. (1983). Hong, H. V., & Hong, E. H. (Eds.). Fear and Trembling; Repetition (Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nietzsche, F. (2020). The genealogy of morals. Neeland Media LLC