Both Nietzche and Wittgenstein raise the issue of the morality of morality. In other words, they ask "Why should someone be good?"

Describe the different ways in which Wittgenstein and Nietzsche understand the human moral predicament i.e. the challenge of asserting that ethical behavior is itself ethical. Where do they differ? Where do they agree?

How might Haidt and his colleagues address the meta-ethical concerns of both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein? How would they answer the question “Why should someone be good?”

Please note that no one here will do your work for you. However, we will be happy to read over what YOU THINK and make suggestions and/or corrections.


Please post what you think.

ok well I'm just confused about the whole idea of "human moral predicament" and meta-ethical... I get that Nietzsche and Wittgenstein both have ways of showing what is good and bad, and they both have there reasons. But again, when it comes to the human moral predicament, I'm not sure what is being asked. Can someone please help me!!

I never studied any of these men and their thoughts, so I can't help you with content; I can help only in the process you must use in order to write your assignment.

You need to take the time to address each set of questions separately.

#1 - Write up what you know about Nietzsche's philosophy in detail.

#2 - Write up what you know about Wittgenstein's philosophy in detail.

#3 - Write up what you know about Haidt's philosophy in detail.

You should end up with three lists rather than paragraphs. It's far easier to compare and contrast things/philosophies/people by means of lists. In your lists, the items may or may not be complete sentences.

Until you are crystal clear on all three, and in detail, you won't be able to address the questions.

To understand how Wittgenstein and Nietzsche address the morality of morality, we need to explore their perspectives on ethical behavior. While they both question why someone should be good, their approaches and conclusions differ in significant ways.

Wittgenstein was a philosopher primarily concerned with the nature of language and the limits of its meaning. He believed that ethical propositions, like "I ought to be good," do not express facts or truths about the world. Instead, he argued that they serve as expressions of personal attitudes, emotions, or commands. For Wittgenstein, morality is a matter of personal commitment and adherence to social norms or rules of behavior. In his view, being good is primarily a linguistic expression and a matter of following established ethical conventions.

On the other hand, Nietzsche, known for his critique of traditional moral values, approached the morality of morality from a more skeptical and individualistic standpoint. He rejected the idea of a universal, objective morality and questioned the foundations of conventional ethical systems. Nietzsche argued that moral values are subjective and contingent upon individual perspectives, cultural contexts, and power relations. He believed that traditional morality served the interests of those in power, suppressing natural human instincts and creativity. Nietzsche's perspective on the challenge of ethical behavior highlights the tension between societal norms and personal authenticity.

Jonathan Haidt, along with his colleagues in moral psychology, offers another perspective on the moral predicament raised by Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. Haidt's research focuses on the psychological and evolutionary basis of morality and suggests that moral judgments are shaped by a combination of intuition, reasoning, and social influences. Rather than seeking to answer the question of why someone should be good from a purely rational perspective, Haidt emphasizes the role of moral intuitions and emotions in guiding ethical behavior.

Haidt and his colleagues propose that individuals adopt moral values and social norms through a combination of innate psychological mechanisms and cultural learning. They argue that moral judgments are often made instinctively and then rationalized afterward. Haidt's theory of moral foundations suggests that people have a set of innate moral intuitions, including care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. These moral foundations, varying in strength across individuals and cultures, influence how people perceive and evaluate moral situations.

Addressing the question of why someone should be good, Haidt and his colleagues argue that morality serves important social functions, such as promoting cooperation, resolving conflicts, and maintaining social order. They propose that being good is beneficial both for individuals and for society as a whole, as it fosters trust, social cohesion, and overall well-being. According to Haidt, moral systems arise through a combination of evolved psychological mechanisms and cultural evolution, and they serve as tools for navigating social interactions and promoting group cooperation.

In summary, while Wittgenstein sees the morality of morality as primarily a matter of linguistic expression and adherence to social norms, Nietzsche challenges conventional morality and emphasizes individual authenticity. Haidt and his colleagues propose that moral judgments rely on a combination of innate psychological mechanisms and cultural learning, with morality serving important social functions. Their understanding of why someone should be good centers around the benefits of cooperative behavior for individuals and society.