Tristan Walter Mahaffey

March 17, 2020

Philosophy 101

My Truest Morality

Let me begin with a little background information to my original experiences with morality and

how I now feel about the ideals Plato, Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. The whole point of philosophy seems

to be to challenge thoughts, or to put them on trial. You pry and pull at what you know, at what you

think you know, at what could be or what couldn’t possibly be true. This method of obtaining truth is

dangerous to ignorance, like a wildfire to a dry forest. Once the wheels are set in motion, you find it very

hard to look at things the same way. Your faith gets tested and broken relatively often, but not without

reformation. The idea of God, of ultimate good, of ultimate truth; it’s a radical kind of belief, and I didn’t

realize how similar it was in nature to Kant’s and Nietzsche’s own beliefs until much later. I think that’s

what’s always bugged me about them; they see the “grey” with disgust. They are definitely at odds

when it comes to ideals, but both try to destroy the middle ground of morality in its entirety. This is why

I’m, for the most part, aligned with Hume’s examinations of morality and the way he saw things to be.

Plato and his recounts of Socrates’ own methods set up the frame work for Kant’s, Hume’s, and

Nietzsche’s own beliefs on the existence and material of morality, and because of this excellent skeleton

there is a lot of truth to be found in Plato’s writings. One of the reasons Plato makes such a good

foundation is the context surrounding the idea of power that was commonly held in Athens at the time;

the power of oratory, or speech with a purpose. The ability to dress up your words and persuade those

around you was of very high value to all men during this time, and this reverence for being snake like in

tongue was clearly of great distaste to Plato as well as Socrates. In Plato’s reality, there exists a definite

morality, which is set up around the Greek idea of things of virtue and things lacking thereof. To have
virtue is to obtain excellence, and excellence is ultimately good, and there for excellent things are also

ultimately useful. That’s the general basis for Socrates’ view on morality, but there is a bit more to it

then just a sense of utility. The “soul” is another key aspect to the puzzle. To Plato/Socrates, the soul can

have an apparent state, and that state is affected by our actions; there are actions that corrupt your soul

and harm you and actions that are supremely good for you. This is something I think we can all agree

and resonate with, as there are habits and decisions that while may not cause immediate harm, they will

certainly put you in a bad position. That much is undeniable, regardless of a present belief of the soul or

lack thereof.

This being said, Plato’s view is much too broad. Hume’s empirical study of the subject of

morality feels far more precise. Since Hume’s view of morality is in fact scientific in nature, there is a

good bit of truth to be found in his writing. Hume thinks of our actions in a rational sense. What we do,

what we say, what we think; it all stems from desire. We desire all kinds of things, but they can be put

into two simple categories: Pleasure and Utility. Hume is right to claim these as principles of humanity,

but what about morality? If our actions are driven by desire, then that means the “good” we do, such as

helping others, is completely natural. This is something I find to be true in our age, and is an excellent

point to make for a more generalized view that I personally tend to favor over a more radical one.

Another point Hume makes is the existence of justice and law that is present in every society. It doesn’t

matter where you look or how far you go, you will not find a large group of humans that don’t have at

least something roughly similar to a law system. We can’t live in such large numbers, or even live at all

with out a form of coexistence. This makes morality out to be something we only value due to utility, but

that’s not what Hume is getting at; yes, morality is incredibly useful, but we very often act morally for no

other reason but to be useful to others than ourselves. That’s why I tend to align with Hume morally.

There are two sides to his view, but there’s also all kinds of things in the middle. Flexing this way and

that for the truth, that’s what I feel like is the truest form of morality. The rules we enforce and submit
ourselves to are hardly ever black and white just as much as they are hardly the same from one society

to another.

Kant is, as a whole, a complete counter argument to Hume’s study and view of morality. He is

entirely unscientific about morality and instead rolls with an “anti-human” focus. This means, since his

examination of morality is not empirical in nature, that all things moral in his book cannot ultimately be

uncovered by science, as science can only tell us the “can” and the “what” we do, not the “should”. Kant

therefor does not base morality on human nature but on an in-exclusive sense of morals; morality that

pertains to every thing capable of moral action and thought. Since Kant’s view on morality is empirical, it

cannot come from our experiences, making morality an ultimate principle by definition alone. Kant

brings awareness to our moral duty and the corruption and upkeep of its health. Kantian morality is not

practiced out purpose, but out of this sense of moral duty, or respect for its very existence. Because of

this, our moral duty can be corrupted if our reasons behind an action of moral duty are uncertain or not

clearly definable. So, what makes an action or behavior fall under true moral duty? What is the fabric of

an action that is, by definition, moral in all forms, cases, and situations? Kant calls this the “moral

content” of an action, or a the maxium of an action; If a maxium if not affected by emotion nor desire,

its fit to be morally applaudable, which is something that I agree with. Morality should definitely be

truthful in nature and should not be solely determined on the emotional or desired response to the

situation. Kant’s view of a morality in absolutes can be recognized as a part of the whole truth, that

much I believe. There are certainly maxiums in place that fit in every situation, regardless of age or social

and cultural differences, such as telling the truth. I cannot say that I agree with the idea of an “ultimate

morality”. We know too little to begin thinking like gods; concepts that are ultimate are barely present in

any area of study, so why should we think that we’ve even begun to scratch the surface of this complex

system we call morality? I see the ideal of “ultimate morality” as a neat thought and nothing more.
 Nietzsche is arguable the most enjoyable to read out of the four head honchos, and its especially

hard not to buy in to every point he makes. His view of morality is far different from the others, and its

frankly quite different from anything I’ve ever heard. His take on morality is snarkier; morality is a result

of the relationship between peasants and nobles. Those of higher wealth and status set the standards

for which all should achieve, and anything that didn’t fall under the standard fell into the plebian

category. Thus, the notions of good and bad were born, according to Nietzsche. This I cannot agree with.

The laws we find natural respect in, the principles we find satisfaction in following, and the natural want

to help others that I find all too real and constant in my own life point to something of far more complex

origins then the squabbles of the poor and rich. That doesn’t mean I’m completely opposed to

Nietzsche’s views, however. Another of Nietzsche’s comparisons is between the values of the priest and

his religion and the values of the knight and his war. You can find these values to be alive and well even

today, but each are former shadows of themselves. The priest, in his peaceful, unambitious nature

seems to preach of kindness and love. In reality, hatred is brewing in the priest’s heart. It is obvious to

Nietzsche why this is, and its apparent in our own society’s common religions as well; there is a jealous

nature between the priest and the knight. The knight is a warrior. He is brave, honorable, and ready to

fight at any given moment. He’s damn good at it too, and that drives the priest insane. Nietzsche’s point

is that our sense of morality was built by history’s losers; the priests. They couldn’t fight, they couldn’t

make war, and they especially couldn’t win any battle with words and prayer alone, so they attacked the

one way they knew how; they made the warrior’s values taboo. No stealing, no killing, no lying, no

fighting back. These values that we find ourselves upholding with pride are in actuality a display of

weakness. This I can agree with. I prefer to keep my sense of morality open and in that sense my values

often look like the priest’s, but at the same time I cannot deny the fact that fighting is fun as hell. Its in

my nature to want to earn a living with my fists, and that points to Nietzsche’s main point; morality is

naught but perceptions and interpretations of the given age.

This can certainly be found to be an absolute truth when it comes to morals. All throughout history

words and concepts take on different meanings, and I don’t think morals are any different in that sense.

Another one of Nietzsche’s morals I find to be endearing is this concept of “sickness and health” that

aligns itself with Plato a bit. The idea that hatred creates sickness is something that should make you

uncomfortable, because it is a sin we have all committed, per say. The correlation between the priest’s

and the knight’s values may very well be a load of bull when you think of the origins of morality, but

there isn’t anyone who can deny hatred can spring up from one’s inabilities to perform any given thing

in competition with another.

I may agree whole heartedly with Hume’s flexible approach to morality, but I cannot help but

find all of these great thinkers right in some aspects. Hume’s sense of morality may not be restrictive

and overly concise like Kant’s, but Kant himself reveals the truest way to be moral in his quest to

uncover absolutes in morality, which is to say a moral action without any your own self-gain involved.

Nietzsche’s ideals are incredibly brash and radical, but you cannot help but find truth in the fact that our

sense of morality, whilst often priestly and weak in nature, is certainly not the same as the ages before

us, and therefor cannot be ordained as the right or wrong stance to take between good and evil,

because our entire interpretation is very different from our origins’ interpretation of morals. Ultimately,

I find that in the very nature that each of these philosophers echoed from each other from each age,

that morality will likely continue to be researched and better known, and that regardless of the different

stances they took they all discovered undeniable principles around morality. I don’t buy completely into

Kant, Nietzsche, or Plato, but they are full of truths in their own right.