Nietzsche's ethical views seem to be on the stance of the fact that mankind is in a barbaric state and has much growing to do. He believe that truth is relevant and seems to almost be a post-modernist. Although there are some views that don't quite fit that. He feels that humankind has much growing to do and that if we can grow past those different things we are able to become a new species of mankind, a superman. He feels that people especially Christians and Jews who dwell in their suffering and believe in a "hallucination" of Christ's ressurection should be killed off and be made war too since they are no use to humanity. He claims that all Christians do is condemn and hate the word, which is untrue Christians are called upon to love each and every human in the word. I feel that he misinterpreted the book of Acts in which Luke tells the story of Paul, since it seems Nietzsche attacks and hates Paul and blames all of Christianity on Paul alone. He feels that Christians don't follow the teachings that Christ created for us. He uses the example that if your right eye sins you should cut it off, etc. He says that no Christian does that to help oneself, yet a dentist pulls out a hurting tooth and gets no thanks for helping someone out of pain. He seems to be saying Christians put themselves in their own pain. He does however, have an interesting love of Christ and believes that He was the Son of God sent to teach the world how to leave and not to redeem and save us from sin which Nietzsche doesn't seem to believe in. He also feels that humankind should be allowed to do what was instinctively given to us. He feels there is nothing wrong with most things that come naturally to us. Almost Darwinian in his thought that the weak should die off and the strong inherit the earth.
Question 2:
Epictetus is of the school of thought that believes all of us were put here on this earth for a certain purpose. He feels in order for us to fully be happy we must find out what the purpose was and complete that. He feels that this is God's will and we are all part of God's divine plan that He has figured out. He feels that there are certain laws in this universe that we must follow and will follow in order for it to be in a "Cosmic Harmony" When we are not in the balance we are unhappy and we see things that are not good. Evil seems to come from this is what I get out of Epictetus. He feels that we should do the best and most of what we are given to benefit mankind and others. He feels we also find happy in this. He also feels that in our failures we shouldn't be taken aback and disappointed because certain things are out of our control and are merely part of the "divine plan" that God has in store for the universe already. He feels that we should try to have control over ourselves as much as possible and conform to what we have been given. I feel his biggest feeling is that even if we do something wrong if our will was good then it is good however if we do something good and our intent was wrong then it is evil.
Spinoza debates that the things that most people would consider are good are actually evil. He states that nothing is gained out of wealth, fame, and pleasure and they all will surely let you down eventually and hurt you in the long run. He feels that we should stop looking for happiness in things that will someday never be here and vanish and find our happiness in things that can last forever. We should constantly be trying to do things for others and to improve society for years to come. He clarifies that although we are limited in our abilities we are able to still benefit others. The major difference between Epictetus and Spinoza I feel is that of free will. Spinoza believes that we all must conform to what is already going to happen and we have absolutely no control as to how that comes about. Epictetus feels that if we are not in line of the future it is merely a bad an evil thing that will happen to us and not neccessarily the future will not happen as predetermined. However, I feel they both agree in the fact that there is a divine plan being followed and all things should be done for the benefit of others.
Question 3:
When Marx says "morality is essentially ideology" I feel he is stating his opinion on what are human ideas. Marx feels that thinking is proof of existense, mankind is what they think it is. Everything that someone comes up with they will live by. He states even that "consciousness is conscious existense." That is saying that you aren't awake unless you think that you are awake. What I understood by his criticism of utilitarianism is that it basically says everyone and anything is only worth what it does in relations to other things and we should all be classified into the relation we have with certain things. Then dependant on that category determines it's importance, our importance, how we'll be paid and etc. I could be very off on this though. Marx feels that we should live in a society that has no class system whatsoever, he feels that because of class we have all the problems we do. There would be no problems with slavory, money, stingy richness etc. Hobbes seems to think that if we only think of ourselves and do what is neccessary for our survival that it would be a perfect world. He feels that good is when man finds his appeitie and evil is to be without this. He says we should be accepting of the fact society is in a state of continuous war since we are all wanting what everyone else has. It seems Hobbes and Marx seem to agree in the fact that society needs a sort of peace yet Hobbes only seems to care about the individual where Marx cares for the society in general. I mostly side with Marx however I do have some concern as to it coming close to communism. So I'm not really sure if I completely agree with either of them.
Question 4:
I feel that both writers agree in the aspects of how good and evil are ascertained by their will. I feel they both understand that you must first have good in mind or evil in mind during an objective to either find happiness or sorrow. Aquinas feel that Aristotle is wrong in that we cannot find higher wisdom in our current life and that we are made to have difficulties in differing between moral and intellectual virtues. However, since we are made in God�s image we have the capability to determine what is right and wrong and which laws we should have. I feel Aristotle believes that wisdom is more important then morality where Aquinas feels morality can be found through wisdom and through knowledge of God. They are both similar in as to how happiness is ascertained. Aquinas feels that we must contemplate the truth but in that truth that everything we have falls short and in order to attain happiness we must know the truth of God. He sees that happiness is a goal, and although Aristotle might not get to happiness in the same light he feels happiness is a goal as well.
Question 5:
Augustine feels that God created everything perfectly good and that all things must come through God. He feels that evil cannot be in God�s persona. He states however that some things God creates are not wholly and good and because of this have capability of evil. He feels the definition of evil is merely the absence of good. All things are created to be good since they came from God however, since they are not perfectly good they can be corrupted. Which as Augustine feels corruption is when good is being deprived. He feels that everyone is at least a little good in some small way if not larger. And, if you are completely evil and corrupt the only way for this to happen is to fully consume the entire being itself. Since God is all-powerful He could stop evil if he wants to. His permitting evil then must reflect His goodness in some way or another. The choice between good and evil that humans make will always be used by God to make things good. The will of God is never defeated and though much is done that disobeys His will He will always use it towards his cause. As an example Augustine uses that because of Adam�s sin we are fallen and cursed to damnation, however, God using this evil gave us Christ to die for and forgive us, turning this into a good thing. He answers the question that if God has foreknowledge then He must be evil since He let�s things occur. Augustine shows that us humans have free will to make evil choices and that even though God can foresee this, that is different then actually doing it and causing it. An evil will is simply one that fails to choose good. We must realize that the supreme good is within God and not within ourselves. He feels that without religion there are no true virtues and that their would be no way to do anything wrong without everyone agreeing on this. He feels that when we live in the city of man we find no peace, yet within the city of God where you love your neighbor we find peace.
Sartre states that man shows up on the earth and then defines himself, he believes no god defines man. Man will be what he planned for himself to be and not what he wants to be. He feels that because of this man can only do good and it is impossible to do evil. He feels that we are solely responsible for our own actions and that there is no god to tell what is right or wrong. He feels that we must go out seeking to make decisions rather then avoiding them because if we do this we are avoiding the challenge of life and therefore in a way causing evil upon ourselves. He feels that we should hail our own accomplishments and to how it helps society and give that pride to no one else.