posted by david .
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.