i have my history final tomorrow. 3 essays i got 2 of the topics and i am finished one essay but i just can't finish the last one..im sooo stupid. gahhh
here is my philosophy 120 final essay (there may be some mistakes, because this was my final copy before editing - my good ones @ school)

Beyond God and Morality

According to Nietzsche, Kantian and Utilitarian moralities are only plausible or relative if one believes in the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. In this essay, I will discuss Nietzsche’s claim and why he may have believed that. I will also summarize the similarities and differences between the Judeo-Christian faith and Kantian and Utilitarian ethics and prove that they even an atheist or a non-believer can still live a Utilitarian or Kantian moral way of life.
You do not need to be a believer in the Judeo-Christian God to follow a Kantian way of life. Kantian style ethics can be seen as an alternative to the Judeo-Christian faith or rather Divine Command ethics. For example, unlike the Judeo-Christian faith, the source for Kantian ethics is not God, but rather reason and the Good will. “Nothing in the world-indeed nothing even beyond the world-can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will” (183). Here we see Kant going above God, proclaiming that to be good, we must have a good will. Much of what Kant writes is paralleled to the Judeo-Christian faith. He expresses his strong feelings in promoting good and the only way we can have moral worth is if our actions come from duty. The Judeo-Christian religion is different in a sense that it acts in accordance with duty, as opposed to being from duty. We can see why Nietzsche may have coincided the two together. Kant’s categorical imperatives are very similar to the beliefs held by followers of God in the Judeo-Christian faith. For example, Kant believes we not only have duties to ourselves but duties to others as well; we should keep our promises, we shouldn’t lie, and we should help those when it is needed of us (201). This is very similar to the Judeo-Christian faith and represents what Nietzsche might call, slave-morality. Because of the similarities between the two, Nietzsche believes they go hand in hand. Unfortunately, there is one main difference which disproves Nietzsche’s claim all together; There is no mention whatsoever of God in Kant’s writings of A Metaphysics of Morals. He does not address God, because he does not feel he has to. Kant’s writing reveals to the reader that instead of relying on God of what is moral and why we should be moral; Kant uses rationality as his motive to be moral. He believes humans are rational beings who “want to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Kant qtb Black). Since “we are all equal and all possess a capacity in willing our ends we must respect others for the same” (Black). Based on what I have covered of Kantian ethics, it is simple to see that even an atheist or a non-believer in the God of the Judeo-Christian faith could still follow a Kantian way of life. Nietzsche had very strong feelings in slave-morality and found those who cared about others below them to be weak and that weakness began with religion and those oppressed by their religion and in turn, God. When Nietzsche saw that Kantian ethics, which revolved around the Good will and the categorical imperatives, he couldn’t help but combine slave-morality, Kant’s ethics and the God of the Judeo-Christian faith. Unfortunately, he is false in his claim and Kant’s ethics can be followed by a believer, non-believer and an atheist.
In regards to Nietzsche’s claim that Utilitarian ethics is only plausible if one believes in the God of the Judeo-Christian religion, I will also explain why that is false and why Nietzsche may have believed that. As I try to prove Nietzsche’s claim incorrect, I will be using Mill for my examples of Utilitarian ethics, since I am most familiar with him. A definition of Utilitarianism can be summed up with “an act, rule, or principle is right if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of persons” (Black). Right away, Nietzsche wants to say that only someone who believed in the God of the Judeo-Christian religion would listen to Utilitarian philosophers. However, Utilitarianism is much different from that of the Judeo-Christian religion, or what God would want as outlined in the bible. For example, in Mill’s writing on Utilitarianism he makes the distinction between higher pleasures and lower pleasures. “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.” (Mill qtb Black). Putting aside Mill for a moment, as mentioned earlier, Utilitarianism is concerned with maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number. This would at first seem very much like the Judeo-Christian religion and what God might have wanted, in this case Mill and Utilitarian ethics have some certain virtues of Judeo-Christianity; This is what may have led Nietzsche to believe that only a believer in the Judeo-Christian religion could find Utilitarianism plausible. However, just like Kant’s writings, no where in Mill’s Utilitarianism does he mention God, or believing in th God of the Judeo-Christian religion. Instead, he concentrates on the higher pleasures, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Mill 216). Clearly, an atheist or non-believer in the Judeo-Christian God can identify with higher pleasures and the idea that an act is good if it promotes utility and still remain a non-believer in the God of the Judeo-Christian faith. In fact, Mill’s Utilitarianism need not take God into consideration, but merely must distinguish that there are higher pleasures and to better ourselves, and to be a moral person we must always strive for that which exercises our higher faculties such as intellect, imagination, judgement, choice, responsibility and so on (220). Just as Kantian morality can be seen as an alternative to the Judeo-Christian religion, Mill’s Utilitarianism could also be seen as the same.
So, why did Nietzsche make that claim? Could it have been that he thought that these ethics were so similar that they must be grounded on one another? Perhaps. In Nietzsche’s
book, Beyond Good and Evil, he discusses the idea of master-morality and slave-morality. Master-morality, which Nietzsche sees as the aristocracy of the world. Anyone who is not part of master-morality is part of slave-morality. When Nietzsche says master-morality he means those who “Will to Power” (245), or one who “helps the unfortunate...from an impulse generated by the superabundance of power...rather than out of pity” (245). As Nietzsche studied Utilitarian and Kantian moralities he could see the slave moralities in which these philosophers had ensnared themselves in. Nietzsche sees these philosophers as the prime example of slave-morality, in Mill’s case: the greatest good, for the greatest number of people. God and the Judao-Christian religion can be seen as the ultimate slave-morality; promoting good and happiness without anything in return would disgust Nietzsche. This is why he could have drawn parallels between God and Utilitarianism and Kant. However, in now way is a belief in God necessary for a person to live a Utilitarian or Kantian lifestyle.
Nietzsche’s claim that Kantian and Utilitarian moralities are only plausible or relative if one believes in the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition was justified in the sense that one could in fact relate them very closely. However, Nietzsche was mistaken in his remarks for the simple fact that neither Utilitarian or Kantian ethics show a need for believing in God in order to follow the moralities. In fact, as pointed out earlier, these two ways of life could be seen as an alternative to Christianity because neither rely on a higher power or a belief in a higher power to live a moral life. Nietzsche’s claim is obviously mistaken and both Utilitarian and Kantian ethics can be followed by anyone, God-believing or not.


Works Cited
Quinn, Philip L.. God and Morality. Ethics: Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers. Eds. Oliver A. Johnson and Andrews Reath. Wadsworth Publishing. 2006. 422-441.
Quinn, Philip L. God and Morality. Ethics: Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers. Eds. Oliver A. Johnson and Andrews Reath. Wadsworth Publishing. 2006. 422-441.