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?”
Both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein explore the morality of morality and question why someone should be good. However, they have different understandings and approaches to the human moral predicament.
Nietzsche's perspective can be described as "genealogical." He investigates the origins and historical development of moral values and argues that conventional morality is a product of social and cultural constructs. Nietzsche sees ethical behavior as a result of power struggles and individual will to power. He believes that morality is imposed on individuals by those in power to suppress their natural instincts and desires. For Nietzsche, being good is a matter of subjective interpretation and perspective. He challenges traditional moral values and encourages individuals to engage in self-affirmation and self-overcoming.
On the other hand, Wittgenstein's approach to the morality of morality is more focused on the language games and limits of our understanding. He emphasizes the importance of language and how it shapes our concepts and moral judgments. Wittgenstein suggests that ethical language is meaningful and justified in its specific context within a shared form of life. He analyzes moral language as a social practice and challenges the notion that there could be objective, universal moral principles. Wittgenstein believes that ethical behavior is a matter of adopting and conforming to moral rules within a specific language game.
While Nietzsche and Wittgenstein differ in their understanding of the human moral predicament, they also share some common aspects. Both philosophers reject the idea of objective, universal moral values. They question the foundations and validity of traditional moral frameworks and expose the subjective nature of morality. Both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein challenge the notion that ethical behavior can be based on rational argumentation alone, highlighting the role of emotions, instincts, and linguistic practices in shaping moral judgments.
Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues, on the other hand, propose a different perspective to address the meta-ethical concerns raised by Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. Haidt's moral foundations theory suggests that moral judgments are inherently intuitive and based on a set of innate psychological foundations. These foundations include care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Haidt argues that moral values and judgments emerge from a combination of biological, cultural, and individual factors. According to Haidt, individuals should be good because morality is deeply ingrained within human nature, and moral behavior ultimately serves to maintain social cohesion and human flourishing.
In summary, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein offer divergent views on the morality of morality, with Nietzsche emphasizing power dynamics and subjective interpretation, while Wittgenstein focuses on language games and context. Haidt and his colleagues propose a perspective that incorporates innate psychological foundations to explain ethical behavior and address the concerns raised by both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. They argue that being good is rooted in human nature and contributes to societal harmony and well-being.