ETHICS MIDTERM #1: Essay Questions

Ethics Midterm 1: Essay Questions

1. Offer a detailed description of Nietzsche’s ethical views. Explain what his opposition to Christian morality is. What does he mean by “transvaluation of values”? Also, utilizing the websites on Nietzsche, specifically explain why he loves Jesus but hates Paul? Why does Christian morality offend him? What does he envision for the height of humanity? Etc….

Friedrich Nietzsche is a prominent German philosopher who emphasizes the “transvaluation of values”. “Trans” is a Latin word meaning “across,” “beyond,” or “on the opposite side”. Therefore, by putting an emphasis on the transvaluation of values, Nietzsche tries to make people look beyond the traditional values and undergo the transformation necessary to obtain new, true values.

Although Nietzsche was a son of a clergyman, he became greatly influenced by the ancient Greco-Roman civilization, the pessimistic, antirationalistic philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, and the contemporary principle of the “survival of the fittest” after his study at the universities of Bonn and Leipzig. At Bonn and Leipzig, Nietzsche found his new philosophical learning meaningful and the mainstream European civilization decadent.

Nietzsche criticized many religions harshly. As an example, he says that many clergymen sought power over hypocritical sermons. However, among the many religions that he criticized, Nietzsche singled out Judeo-Christianity as the most harmful source. In Nietzsche’s view, the many concepts taught by Judeo-Christianity hid the facts of existence and promoted the suppression of the will to power.

One of the most prominent figure in Christianity that Nietzsche criticized was St. Paul. Nietzsche calls St. Paul impudent because he thinks St. Paul gave a logical quality to an indecent conception that “if Christ did not rise from the dead, then all our faith is in vain!” Nietzsche criticizes Paul for preaching shameless doctrine of personal immortality for personal gains. Moreover, Nietzsche blames the vainness in Christianity on St. Paul. He says the life, the teaching, and the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels are gone because St. Paul was changing meanings in Christianity in his favor. Nietzsche concludes that Paul has established priestly tyranny through falsification.

Despite Nietzsche’s criticism on St. Paul and Christianity in general, Nietzsche in fact loves Jesus. Nietzsche praises Jesus in many of his passages. He accentuates that it is the action and not beliefs that sets Christians aside from the rest of the people. Therefore, only a new way of life, not a new faith, can lead to the psychological reality in “salvation”. And Nietzsche praises God for saving mankind by showing them how to live. He is very appreciative of how Jesus’ demeanors bequeath a way of life to man.

Moreover, with the “survival of the fittest” principle enrooted in his ethical values, Nietzsche valued individualism above all else. Individualism is a philosophy, which emphasizes individual liberty, the primary importance of the individual, and the “virtues of self-reliance’ and personal independence”. Nietzsche felt that people need to be independent and have the will to power in order to ascend morally.

However, during the period of time in which Nietzsche lived in, Christianity ideals were very prevalent. Many Christian beliefs are contrary to Nietzsche’s beliefs. For example, Christianity puts a strong emphasis on the afterlife. Nietzsche thinks that the belief in the afterlife makes Christian followers less able to cope with their real, present life.

In addition, Nietzsche was opposed to pity and altruism in particular; he believes that the Christianity’s emphasis on pity leads to the rise of the weak-minded. Portraying these ideals to economic, political terms, Nietzsche supports philosophical capitalism in which all individuals are responsible for their own wellness, and that people can advance through competition.

In contrast with the ideals of peace and universal equality, Nietzsche’s beliefs accentuate the merits of exploitation and competition. “Exploitation and competition, he argues, characterize all living things, because they are the very essence of the will to power” (Great Traditions, 224). Many generally accepted ideals such as universal equality and promotion of public welfare are viewed as philosophical communism by Nietzsche. To Nietzsche, these altruistic ideals sabotage people’s will to power and conceal the hard facts of existence.

In sum, Nietzsche was a revolutionary thinker of his time. His theory of “transvaluation of values,” as it was called, was opposite of the mainstream ethical philosophies. Nevertheless, because Nietzsche was brave enough to publicly express his ideals, his thought had widespread influence and of particular importance in his own country, Germany.


2. Explain the ethical system of Epictetus and then of Spinoza. Next compare and contrast their ethical theories. Offer specifics detailing how they are similar (and there are some strong similarities! Focus on Stoicism and make sure to define it) and how they are different.

Benedict de Spinoza is a philosopher whose best known work is “Ethics”. In “Ethics,” Spinoza discusses his view of human ethics and makes the use of the word God constantly. To Spinoza, to understand ethics is to understand God. He explains his ethical theory by discussing the nature of God and humans’ relation to God. Comprehending Spinoza’s work, it seems that he equates God with Nature.

However, either with or without the religious sense, Spinoza’s central ethical theory remains the same. In Spinoza’s ethical theory, humans are to aquire knowledge and achieve virtue through self-preservation. This self-preservation, according to Spinoza, can be achievevd by understanding the relationship between the human mind and the nature. Also, Spinoza believes rationality and the perfection of the intellect can lead to happiness and moral excellence in individuals. Therefore, Spinoza emphasizes that people should devote themselves to fostering reason.

Spinoza’s emphasis on reason and happiness is very simmilar to the teachings of Epictetus. According to Epictetus, “the person who values virtue for its own sake is happy” and that “virtue is a condition of the will wherein it is governed by reason, with the result that the virtuous person seeks only those things that are within reach and avoids those things that are beyond it” (Great Traditions, 51).

Like many other philosophers, Spinoza thinks the pursuit of material interests lead people to unhappiness. His explanation is that material goals such as riches, fame, and pleasure consume mental energy and time and distract people from meditation. Furthermore, Spinoza feels that most material goals are evil because they are perishable. In Spinoza’s views, a good deed cannot be destroyed by external causes.

While Spinoza wants people to refrain from perishable goals, Epictetus stresses the importance of mind of people in refraining themselves from unattainable desires. Such theory is very similar to stoicism in philosophy. Spinoza and Epictetus thus share very similar ideas concerning stoicism. To these two philosophers, the mind helps an individual live in a manner befitting his or her rational natures, and that these manners are considered ethical behaviors.

Nevertheless, Spinoza and Epictetus’ theories also somewhat differ from one another. The chief difference between Epictetus and Spinoza is that Epictetus believes the cause of unhappiness is people’s misinterpretation of happenings; he believes that people’s interpretations and judgments are affected by their feelings. Contrastingly, Spinoza believes the cause of unhappiness is people’s vain pursuit of unattainable desireas and pleasures.


1. What does Marx mean when he says “morality is essentially ideology?” (What does he say determines our moral systems?) Furthermore, what is his exact criticism of Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarianism (explain what this is)? Next compare Marx to Hobbes. What is Marx’s view of human nature and an ideal society. What do you agree with and why?

Karl Marx is the most controversial social reformer of the past century. During Marx’s study of law and philosophy, he developed a materialistic theory of history as science. Moreover, Marx devoted much of his life to communist causes, and his concepts have greatly influenced modern socialism.Marx views morality as ideology. According to Marx, morality is not a product of pure reason and has no independent status like most people think it does. He argues that moral values are ideological in character; they are effects of material forces and are thus determined by the economic conditions of the society.

Marx criticizes other two philosophers, Bentham and Mill, for their view on utilitarianism. Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy stated that morality is the enhancement of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Additionally, he views actions that increase pleasure as good and those that increase pain as bad. Similar to Bentham, Mill included that the important difference between pleasures and pain are both qualitative and quantitaive.

Although Marx promotes communism, which is basically welfare for all and elevation of the working class, he does not agree with utilitarianist theories. To Marx, the “greater good” for people should be achieved economically by hardwork. The pursuit of pleasure does not bring “good” to the people.

Thomas Hobbes is another prominent figure in the socio-political field besides Karl Marx. Hobbes believed in social contract ethics. Similar to Marx, Hobbes’ philosophies put strong emphasis on materialism, the theory that physical matter is the only reality that constitutes the greatest good and highest value in life.

Hobbes believes that all humans have egoistic natures. Therefore, he argues that societies are originated, not out of natural feeling for other people, but out of self-interest and fear. Facing much criticism toward such beliefs, Hobbes justifies his theory by saying “there are no grounds for objections against self-interested action in the natural state” (Great Traditions, 98).

According to Hobbes, the sole purpose for the existence of society is to help further each individual’s interests and happiness. Moreover, Hobbes maintains that without the formation of civil societies, there are no established moral systems. Hobbes thinks that humans’ ethical judgments are based on self-preservation by nature. Therefore, absolute sovereignty is necessary to control people’s conscience and prevent competitions that arise from conflicts of interests among individuals.

Marx and Hobbes have similar theories in that morality has no independent status but are originated from socieities’ civilizations. They both believe in the advancement of the society through economic means. However, Hobbes strongly argues that people are selfish by nature. I agree that most people are born with selfishness inside them; however, I also believe that there are some good inside people and that absolute sovereignty is too much of a drastic measure.


2. Aquinas is said to be a Christian with an Aristotelian bent. Explain how he is similar to Aristotle and how he is very different. Explain each philosopher and then compare/contrast them (write in three sections).

Saint Thomas Aquinas is the most famous classical proponent of natural theology, and he is considered by the Catholic Church to be its greatest theologian. His moral theories resemble those of Aristotle; some people say they are the Christianized version of Aristotle’s principles.

According to Aristotle’s perspective, happiness must be explained in terms of reason, a human being’s distinctive function or activity. Also, Aristotle emphasizes the role of self-sufficiency in happiness. By using the word “self-efficient”, Aristotle is trying to express the idea that if a person’s life is desirable and lacks nothing, then it is the man’s life is considered to have reached its final good. “Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (Great Traditions, 27).

Similarly, Aquinas’ theory provides the concept of the vision of God as people’s final goal, a doctrine of free will, and a theory of natural law as the reflection of divine order. Nevertheless, Saint Aquinas does not believe people reach the same final good but that people have free will that directs them to distinctive human ends. While Aristotle says the end of action is happiness, Aquinas believes that all human ends can be attained.

3. Augustine and Sartre may seem like radically different philosophers. Highlight these differences (explain the main ideas of each separately and then contrast them). Also point out in what way they might be similar. What would Sartre find disgusting about Augustine’s philosophy and what might he find acceptable, if any (Hint: for the latter examine the concept of choice).

Augustine is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. He reached this status because he is the first Christian philosopher to formulate the doctrines of his religion in a comprehensive and enduring world view. The central doctrine of Saint Augustine consists of the belief of the original sin as well as divine predestination.

Saint Augustine believes that all humans are stained from the original sin of Adam and Eve, and therefore they deserve only punishment. However, there are still a few chosen ones whom God bestows salvation on as a free gift. There is no guidance as to how God selects His people for salvation. Therefore, neither faith nor good works can ensure salvation – each person is predestined by God either to either salvation or to damnation.

Another important theory of Saint Augustine is to love God is to love truth because God is the truth itself. People may come to know truth through inner experience and conviction; however, they must first believe in order to understand. Therefore, faith is the essential cornerstone for understanding God. “Faith, knowledge, and mystical vision may be conceived as progressive steps on the way to the transcendental understanding of God, who is the essence of all truth” (Great Traditions, 64).

Jean-Paul Sartre is one of the best-known and most widely discussed intellectuals since World War II. He is also the only self-declared contemporary existentialist among the major thinkers. For Sartre, existentialism means individuals are “radically free”. This statement comes from Sartre’s belief that there is no God, and therefore there is no fixed human nature that forces one to act.

Another concept that can be derived from the above-mentioned theory is that, since humans have radical freedom, they are entirely responsible for what they make of themselves. And because people are always free to make choices, Sartre states: “who people are is a function of the choices they make, not that the choices they make are a function of who they are” (Great Traditions, 285). This statement means that people define who they are through making choices.

To further emphasize the importance of responsibilities in one’s actions, Sartre explains that people’s choices not only affect themselves but the entire humanity. “The man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, can not help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility” (Great Traditions, 288).

Sartre thinks that a person’s action forms an image of him and also sets an example for everyone else around him. Therefore every individual is responsible for the whole mankind. He also thinks that as soon as a man realizes the fact that he is responsible for everyone else when making choices, he will be very anxious.

Sartre’s theories put tremendous pressure on people and change their view of ethics. For people who believe that good and evil are pre-destined by God, they can no longer say that they are not solely responsible for their actions because God is supposedly leading their way. Moreover, his theories encourage people to be more aware of the values in which they choose. “…we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without good for all” (Great Traditions, 287). Because anything that is good for the person is good for everyone else and vice versa, the person must make ethical decisions.

Although there had been no direct encounter, it is expected that Sartre would find Augustine’s philosophy disgusting. Up to this point, we can see that Augustine loves God and thinks all human lives and their ends are predestined by God. In completely contrast, Sartre thinks there is no God. Therefore, a person’s action leads him or her to distinctive ends. In Sartre’s point of view, the idea of divine destination is merely a justification of an individual’s incompetence and irresponsibility. Despite the abundant differences between Sartre and Augustine, there is no apparent similarity between the two philosophers except that both ideals are very radical.


4. In what ways is Kant similar to Kierkegaard? And, more importantly, in what ways is he different? Why does Kierkegaard in your reading specifically critique Kant’s duty based morality. Make sure you explain each philosopher’s view of ethics in depth here (separate sections) and offer specifics like Kant’s “categorical imperative” and duty based morality and Kierkegaard “three stages,” etc.

Immanuel Kant is a great philosopher whom values duty and reason and is very critical. He seeks a “pure” moral philosophy instead of just any moral philosophy. As a preliminary to his construction of the pure moral philosophy, “Kant makes a critical analysis of the commonly accepted ‘good’ things, such as health, wealth, and friendship” (Great Traditions, 147). Kant argues that things can only be good if they are conjoined with a good will, which is something that is unqualifiedly good. “To Kant, good will represents the effort of rational beings to do what they ought to do, rather than to act from inclination or self-interest” (Great Traditions, 147)

Soren Kierkegaard is a 19-th centuary Danish philosopher and theologian, and he is generally recognized as the first existentialist philosopher. Because much of his work deals with religious problems, Kierkegaard’s work is sometimes characterized as Christian existentialism. Kierkegaard believes that people’s choices as well as their earnestness and inner passion when making these decisions are both meaningful to human existence. However, besides putting strong emphasize on the spirit, attitude, and will of a person, he also calls attention to religious faith. “For Kierkegaard, a third mode of existence is living by religious faith. It is neither mystical nor irrational but rather is suprarational” (Great Traditions, 186).

Both Kiekegaard and Kant value heart and will. To Kant, a good will has far more meanings than actions; and to Kierkegaard, the earnestness and inner passion in decisions are also more important than the actual carrying-out of the decisions. However, there are also some differences found. Kant believes that every single occurance is a cause-and-effect event, which is interconnected with each other. On the contrary, Kierkegaard does not see life as a string or loop of causes-and-effect events, but something aesthetic, religious, and ethical.

5. Discuss the philosophy of Mill’s utilitarianism (define) and compare/contrast it with Epicurus’ hedonism (define). Hint: While they both speak of pursuing pleasure explain how each one means it.

John Stuart Mill, is an intellectual heir of the Utilitarian movement in England who abides by “the greatest happiness principle”. Mill’s theory of morals Utility is not original; however, he defended the theory better than anyone else did by clarifying the doctrine.

In Mill’s clarification, he states that the moral systems are established based on an action’s tendency to generate happiness. Something that is morally right shall produce happiness, which is pleasure, and something that is morally wrong shall produce unhappiness, which is characterized by pain and the privation of pleasure.

The ethical theory of Epicurus stems from the Cyrenaic doctrine formulated by Aristippus, who advocates the hedonistic principle that pleasure is the supreme good. While there may be a wide range of conception regarding the meaning of a pleasant life, Epicurus believes that a pleasant life can be achieved through the peace of mind.

According to Epicurus, “people always seek what they believe will give them pleasure and avoid what they believe will give them pain and that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain the only intrinsic evil” (Great Traditions, 38).

Another important theory that Epicurus proposes is that “the duration of pleasures is more important than their intensity in achieving happiness” (Great Traditions, 38). This concept is also the origin of his other theory, as mentioned earlier, that the peace of mind can bring a pleasant life. The reasoning is that mental pleasures are superior to physical pleasures for they are more long-lasing. Moreover, Epicurus thinks the pursuit of physical pleasures lead to unhappiness.

The similarities between Epicurus’s hedonism and Mill’s utilitarianism are quite obvious. Both philosophers think that life is about achieving happiness. However, while they both speak of pursuing happiness, each philosopher has a different opinion regarding the meaning of happiness. Mill thinks of happiness as pleasure, and he also equates it to “good” in terms of morality. Epicurus, on the contrary, thinks happiness, or a pleasant life, can only be achieved through the peace of mind.

6. Offer a summary of Hume’s ethical theory…give details. Now what would Kant say to Hume about his ethical theory? Draw directly from the reading on this…this topic is specifically address in your book (Hint: one argues for duty and reason and the other for sentiment…explain this in your answer).

David Hume is recognized as one of the most influential figures in the history of thought. His philosophical writings focus on the discussion of role morality versus sentiment in ethics. Initially, Hume raises the question of whether the source of morality resides on human’s rational nature or passional nature or both. Later on he elaborates on the discussion using his personal observations.“

According to Hume, however, there can be no compromise about which of the two, reason or sentiment, is the ultimate source of morality” (Great Traditions, 136). In Hume’s arguments, reason is incapable of being the source of morality; however, it plays an essential role in rendering moral decisions.

After recording of his observations and extensive analysis of these recordings, Hume decided that an individual’s morality is based on sentiments that have their origin in concern for others. According to Hume, “such sentiments are universally shared, because they are not affected by the relativism of any personal considerations” (Great Traditions, 141-142).

Interpreting the excerpt, I find the phrase “personal considerations” that Hume addresses to be equivalent to “selfishness” in my mini-essay on moral systems. If my reasoning is correct, Hume thinks people with good morality do things based on interests of other people and not themselves. In short, unselfishness constitutes good morality.

Another important philosopher during the 1700’s, who is often compared with David Hume, is philosopher Immanuel Kant. The conclusions that Immanuel Kant has made about morality and ethics are somewhat similar to the conclusions that David Hume made. However, how these two philosophers reach their own conclusion is quite different.

Immanuel Kant is a great philosopher whose philosophies focus on the importance of duty and reason. He lived by routine, never married, and never ventured more than forty miles from the city of his birth and death. Kant has a very regimented attitude toward life. He is a scientific person who establishes his valid moral principle on an a priori foundation.

As mentioned above, Kant values duty and reason and is very critical. He seeks a “pure” moral philosophy instead of just any moral philosophy. As a preliminary to his construction of the pure moral philosophy, “Kant makes a critical analysis of the commonly accepted ‘good’ things, such as health, wealth, and friendship” (Great Traditions, 147).

Kant argues that things can only be good if they are conjoined with a good will, which is something that is unqualifiedly good. “To Kant, good will represents the effort of rational beings to do what they ought to do, rather than to act from inclination or self-interest” (Great Traditions, 147)

David Hume and Immanuel Kant, two of the greatest philosophers of the 1700’s, provided valuable information on their findings of moral principles in both of their writings. Their methods for finding true meaning of morality are quite different; however, they reached similar conclusions on certain aspects.

Because Kant focuses on duty and reason and Hume focuses on morality and sentiment, Kant may say that Hume’s ethical theory is incomplete because it disregards reason, which is what Kant values the most. Having sentiment may help a person make good decisions; however reasons still render the most correct decisions, which leads to pure morality.

7. Can an atheist be moral? Is a theist notion of ethics superior to an atheist notion of ethics? Explain either way. Support your position with “material from the reading” (Hint: make sure to include Paine internet article hyperlinked on syllabus; Sartre, Kierkegaard, and many other philosophers can fit here as well. It is your choice who you decide to utilize in answering this, but I suggest Paine as an important philosopher to look at for this question).

Atheists are people who deny the existence of God. Theists, on the contrary, are people who believe in the existence of God. Example of atheist philosophers includes Sartre; and examples of theist philosophers include Kierkegaard and Augustine. I believe that atheists can be moral just like theists. In fact, I feel that an atheist notion of ethics is superior to a theist notion. Religions are often highly regarded because they push people to be moral. However, such morality is not originated from the heart of the person himself or herself. Moreover, certain immoral individuals may use the good name of religion as cover-ups for their bad acts. Therefore, atheists’ moral systems may seem more pure in comparison with theists’ morality. Thomas Paine's "Revealed Religion and Morality," for example, criticizes Christians harshly. He believed that the most wicked thing was revelation and revealed religion. Many Christians live in self-denial of their sins and pretend to be innocent when they are not. Moreover, Paine argues that the Christian belief of the loving of enemy is another act of pretense. He reasons that people are motivated into doing things. Therefore, to love voluntarily is morally and physically impossible. Paine’s theories conicides with my hypothesis that atheist’ notion of ethics is superior to that of theists’.