peer review

Castillo 1 Maira Castillo Professor Stokes English 1 A 1 February 2020 Friedrich Nietzsche a modern thinker that goes beyond his own beliefs and claims that morality is anti-nature. Friedrich’s perspective of morality was that if a person follows the morality of religion and Christianity they are being dishonest to themselves. He believes that being moral gives the person desires of what their heart truly yearns for. Being moralist can destroy a person because religion limits humans of being who they really are and want to be. The desires of the heart are not the desires of the mind and of their morality. Friedrich states that “ Morality in so far as it condemns for its own sake, and not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances of life, is a specific error with which one ought to have pity- an idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm.” ( Nietzsche 351) . The passions and desires of a human can be our own destruction due to morality keeping humans limited from their cravings. The reality of the Human nature is who the person is and whats its destiny, if a person tries to be moral there will be an outcome. Friedrich talks about the four great errors; the first error of confusing cause and effect. ‘Yet this error belongs among the most ancient and recent habits of mankind; it is even

Castillo 2 hallowed among us and goes by the name of “religion” or “ morality”.Every single sentence which religion and morality formulate contains it; priest and legislators of moral codes are the originators of this corruption of reason.”( Nietzsche 351) Morality and religion create humans as an individual that cannot do anything for its own and who relies on religion and restricts their life. The second error is the error of false casualty, There’s no such thing as casualty when something is there to be seen or heard it will be perceived. Going on is the error of imaginary causes, “The whole realm of morality and religion belongs under this concept of imaginary causes.” “The explanation of disagreeable general feelings.” The causes which we don’t see the agony a person feels is what they deserve. Last but not least, is the error of free will. Every person knows what this free will consists of, all humans choose their destiny and how to live freely. In Friedrich readings,” Today we no longer have any pity for the concept of “free will”: we know only too well what it really is- the foulest of all theologians’ artifices, aimed at making mankind “responsible” in their sense, that Is dependent upon them.”(Nietzsche 355). “Free will the actions that are freely chosen by a person”, every human being has free will and what they choose to do with it it’s their own personal choice do good or bad a conscience is what a person has. Friedrich also explains how “ The church always wanted the destruction of its enemies; we, we immoralists and antichristians, find our advantage in this, that the church exists.”(Friedrich 348) He claims the church of false virtues as the church feels aggression towards it’s enemies the church is with a desire of fulfilling those restrictions that morality offers. The

Castillo 3 church always wants what’s best for its congregators but doesn’t see the fault it has for making it’s people sin with its mind. Humans are dissatisfied under religion they don’t fill that hole of passions that they carry. Many people go to church and praise God, but in the end they fall into temptation and commit sinful thoughts and actions. The morality of this truth is that being moral is not all humans need to be. every individual needs to be who they choose to be an satisfy the wishes of their soul and heart. Nietzsche believed he could free humans from their belief of morality is a good thing for them, which he thought was the worst. He is immoralists that describes himself as is, and “one who does not subscribe to conventional morals( but not one who acts immorally)- and states,” But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the answer.”( Nietzsche 351). His meaning of being an immoralist is that he does not follow any morals but also doesn’t act immorally. He is true to his values and beliefs and remains an immoralist because only like that he is truly free. Friedrich Nietzsche had a purpose for humanity by declining to morality and going beyond his thoughts and beliefs and ought for betterness in the world. In conclusion to Morality as anti-nature, everybody has a free will and can be moralists or immoralists but as long as they watch out for their actions and commit to their beliefs life can be a harmonious world. Being immoralist is not considered that a person is bad, that they follow bad instead of good, no being immoralists just means that the individual follows what their

Castillo 4 heart desires and not what religion wants the people to follow. Friedrichs point of view makes sense in the fact that how can a person be trapped by a religion that follows morality and restricts its believers to an unhealthy life for making them think that everything they do is Sinful. Nietzsche's way of thinking is dense and powerful Nietzsche beliefs are for the common good of Humanity. Nietzsche sees things differently and being moralists can make a change, his work can be extreme and the way he expresses himself of christianity and religion is out of range. In Morality as anti-nature Nietzsche describes what he believes is necessary for humankind to live happy and worried free of being moral.

Castillo 5 Maira Castillo Professor Stokes English 1 A 1 Feb 2020 Works Cited Caldwell, Roger.”Nietzsche and Morality.”Philosophy Now.web.20 Nov. 2014. Jacobus, Lee A. “ Friedrich Nietzsche Morality as Anti_Nature.” A World Of Ideas: Essential Readings For College Writers. 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. 2020.N. Pag. Print. Leiter, Brian.”Nietzsche Moral and Philosophy.” Standford University. Standford University, 26 Aug. 20 Web.20 Nov. 2014.