Morality and Religion Essay

There is a close relationship between godliness and ethics but they do non mean the same thing. On the other hand, anti- holiness and anti- record are aspects, which waste vital thoughts. Friedrich Nietzsche is a renowned philosopher who criticized cordial laws, organized faith, and honorable in a radical manner. Nietzsche argues that, anti-nature refers to the idea of eachowing man beings to storm others into adopting their views and morality (Friedrich 404). Friedrich Nietzsche had a personal belief that piety is anti-nature.In feature, Nietzsche states that, all naturalism in godliness-that is e really health morality-is dominated by an instinct of life (349). Indeed, Nietzsche helps us to coif the idea of anti-nature by take a firm stand that a homophile being is seemingly refuting the reality by denying their personal passion. In fact, according to Nietzsche and his moral philosophy, the healthiest moralities accommodate natural aspects while the unhealthy mo ralities negate nature. Nature derives homo desires, which therefore define individual personality and how forgiving beings be study.Nietzsche observes that human beings should give way the free will to choose what they want without coercion from any external forces. He further quotes that, Anti-natural molarity-that is almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached-turns conversely against the instincts of life it is condemnation of these instincts (349). He besides disputes the common whimsey that religious beliefs like Christianity drive human life and consequently asserts that religion and dominance of morality inhibits human nature.In this context, Nietzsche argues that ardent following of a certain religion ignore the nature of humanity since religion forces individuals to behave in a manner that will please the arrogant ruler of the reference religion. Friedrich Nietzsche holds that religion especially Christianity opposes human nature because it gives a gross profit margin to individuals to adopt religious doctrines about human life hence limiting individuals from celebrating nature. Indeed, Nietzsche states that the most general foundation of every religion and morality is, Do this and that, refrain from this and that,-then you will be happy (352)He uses this write up to support the concept of anti-nature in morality. Notably, Nietzsche refers to morality as anti-nature by asserting that human desires control what individuals do, do not do, and confirms that morality draws away the year of nature. Nevertheless, various philosophers identify with the fact that nature generates human desires that consequently define human personality and morality. However, I strongly oppose Nietzsches notion that human nature is prone to alternation by both morality and religion.most specifically, I note that Nietzsche depicts religious spate like Christians as hypocrites who commode do anything to please God at the expense o f altering their human nature. Ideally, Christians are rational beings who do not have much(prenominal) morality. Indeed, very few Christians would identify with Nietzsches purpose since his ideas discourage Christians from following their religion. Notably, Nietzsches melodic line that religion alters human nature by allowing Christians to adopt dissimilar aspects of life that prevent them from celebrating life is misguided.This is because Christians have moral philosophy that allow them to enthrall their lives just like any other person. In fact, his argument is not universal since it notwithstanding addresses Christians olibanum leaving a signifi burnt world out. Assuredly, Nietzsche discourages hoi polloi from adopting religions doctrines that alter human passions but encourages tidy sum to follow their human desires (Jacobus 67). I also oppose Nietzsches argument since it does not support religion and thus discourages many Christians from adopting his views.In fact, I will compare Nietzsches moral philosophy with Iris Murdochs philosophy with a view of disregarding the commands of Nietzsches reference to morality as anti-nature. Notably, Iris Murdoch addresses the concept of morality where she incorporates religion in addressing morality. In fact, her argument does not discourage the adoption of religious doctrines in morality thus attracting the attention of Christians and other religious people. Unlike, Nietzsche who blames religion for altering human nature and passions, Murdoch believes that religion affects morality in a positive manner.Nietzsche uses the realistic perspective to support his argument where the naturalistic perspective on religion contradicts with the idea of human beings by taking the responsibility of controlling their minded(p) passions and nature. More so, Nietzsches criticism on the effects of religion on human morality does not correlate with any religious, philosophical, social, or historical example and hence its irrationality. As such, Nietzsches argument lacks logic to me. On the other hand, Nietzsche does not incorporate the idea of human responsibility, which every human being should adopt.In fact, the act of satisfying individual responsibility is a moral behavior that resides outside the premises of religion. Actually, slightly philosophers like Murdoch claims that religion improves right morals by impart a conviction and belief of doing the right things while out of control. Indeed, religion plays a noble federal agency of encouraging humans to abide by the code of ethics condition by the government or any relevant institution. In fact, Murdoch asserts that religion plays a huge role in generating someones morals by instilling the urge to remain focused on individual objectives.She further confirms that human nature accommodates the aspect of fulfilling ones responsibility. With this argument, we can derive that religion does not alter human nature and that responsibilities loco mote human beings to decide and behave in a certain manner. Again, this assertion is stronger than that of Nietzsche, which claims that religion inhibits human nature. Michael Gazzaniga seemingly opposes Nietzsche ideologies in some way. According to Gazzaniga, people who believe in religion would besides be classified chthonian Nietzsche ideology of anti-nature if they allowed religion to take over their life (Jacobus 415-420).It is agreeable that some religion fanatics have taken religion to control everything in their life. Therefore, such people would simply be anti-nature as argued by Nietzsche. However, the majorities of religious people have not gone to the extremities of religion and therefore, according to Gazzaniga, they are nutrition normal lives naturally. Nietzsche limits discussions and contributions of other philosophers and commands the audience to believe in his beliefs. Indeed, Nietzsche is an anti-realist about morality.This is because he does not abhor his pos itive views on morality and equally refutes all criticism against his views. In fact, he disregards any opinion that contradicts his own and thus his rhetoric character on morality. Indeed, he denies the objective of morality by believing that human beings have the responsibility of determining their morality, a fact Gazzaniga negates when he says that those who have control of religion have control of nature and morality as well (Jacobus 415-420).At the same time, Nietzsches argument lacks the support of any political philosophy since his views lack a opinionated approach about the society. On the other hand, Murdoch does not speak with finality, encourages the involvement of other philosophers, and accords the audiences free will to accept his argument. Such a leeway only allows individuals to buy Murdochs argument with a view of recrudesce it and rejecting Nietzsches argument since it is discouraging to Christians and is seemingly irrational. Moreover, Nietzsches argument onl y presents what is wrong but does not present what is right while Murdoch helps us to derive the difference between right and wrong morals.Notably, Nietzsche argues that human beings cannot fork out themselves after neglecting their nature desires. This assertion is wrong since human beings always have a desire to fix their wrongs with a view of becoming better people in the society. Moreover, contrary to Nietzsches argument, it is factual that individuals can only achieve their goals by following their convictions and beliefs and denying their human desires, which mostly lead to immorality. Notably, religion derives this conviction, which encourages followers to adopt good morals and avoid sin as it leads to punishment.This negates Nietzsches claim that religion alters human nature and that human desires define morality. As such, I dispute Nietzsches views, which discourage religion from instilling the right morals and consequently identify with the idea that humans have the capac ity to define their morals naturally. I agree that our morals await on our conviction and not our desires as Nietzsche claims. Additionally, I disagree with Nietzsches idea that nature plays no role in defining our morals since nature plays a significant role in determining our behaviors.As such, I reject Friedrich Nietzsches assumption that morality is anti-nature. Works Cited Friedrich, Nietzsche. The Selected literary works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Lanham Start Publishing LLC, 2013. Internet resource. Jacobus, Lee. A World of Ideas Essential Readings for College Writers. bleak York Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. Print. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Morality as Anti-Nature. 347-356. Murdoch, Iris, Morality and religion. Jacobus 363-371 Gazzaniga, Michael. Toward a Universal Ethics. Jacobus 419-431.