"For a critique of Nietzsche in his genealogy

of morals front grounds of the metaphysics of

morals in Kant: a study on the criticalphilosophical project of modernity of morals"

Claudemir Carlos Pereira-RA 131126725

Social Sciences 1 year Daytime

Report presented to the

discipline: Topics of history
of
philosophy:
The
enlightenment and trends
in
contemporary
philosophy-social sciences
course, taught by Prof.
Doctor
Antonio
Ianni
Segatto.

Araraquara, June 2, 2014.

1

SUMMARY
The purpose of this essay is to build an interpretative analysis of the established
criticism on the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, titled the genealogy of Morals it makes the
analysis of the work of Immanuel Kant, the Grounds of the metaphysics of morals. The issue
of morality is viewed from different angles by both authors, generally speaking we can say
that for Kant, morale is a feeling dominated by principles (singular feeling controlled by the
Faculty of the principles, which is the reason), these elements that integrate its doctrine of
moral basis and that in turn would have as object of study to determine the nature of the moral
law. Already in Nietzsche the issue of morality is seen as a genealogy, where the source
elements of morality, especially in the construction of the meanings of "good" and "evil" are
seen from a bias construction applicant the guesswork of history and anthropology in
Nietzsche found a brief problem on another transformation and see under what conditions the
man invented for themselves the value judgments.

INTRODUCTION
In his book, Genealogy of morals, Friedrich Nietzsche breaks with the critical project
of modernity to the extent that his genealogy develops in their own country, as a radicalization
of criticism to Metaphysics of morals Grounds of Kant. In, a graft from his book we read the
following:
"Indeed, since when I was a boy of thirteen years pursued me the problem of
the origin of good and evil: the he devoted, at an age when you have" the
heart divided between toys and God ", my first literary joke, my first
philosophical exercise the solution that I found so well, surrendered after
God, as is fair, making the Father of evil. That's what my required "a priori"
me?. That new and immoral, at least imoralista "a priori", and the
"categorical imperative" that spoke, so antikantiano, so enigmatic, which
since then have given attention, and more attention. "
Nietzsche, Genealogy of morals, p. 9.

The first criticism of Kant according to the graft above is subjection to Christian
morals, that the Kantian system becomes a form of massification of man who finds himself
obliged to act uniformly.
For Kant the moral law commands that subordinemos the nature of the spirit. Just
think this requirement is given, assuming it is possible that to which it relates, this ideal result
2

is the Supreme good, Union of virtue and happiness. But for this supreme right to be possible,
we need to assume a cause able to carry it out, a Supreme spirit, omnipresent, transcendent
God, spiritual being, which all depends. Are we to believe that the moral law is a
commandment of God, the Supreme Lawgiver.
In his book, Nietzsche explains and demystifies this concept in Kant and, the truth is
described in his first dissertation is the psychology of Christianity, in which points to the birth
of the spirit of resentment and not a belief in "spirit", which here we call "God", whose
criticism is a antimovimento in its essence, a great revolt against domination of noble values.
While critical-genealogist of morality, Nietzsche puts under suspicion the belief in
morality. This suspicion is expressed in a new requirement:
"We need a critique of moral values, the actual value of these values must be
placed in question-for this you need a knowledge of the conditions and
circumstances under which they were born under which developed and if
modified (moral as a consequence, as a symptom, mask, tartufice, illness,
misunderstanding; but also as moral cause, medication, stimulant, inhibition,
poison), as knowledge until today never existed nor was desired. Taking the
value of these "values" as given, as effective as beyond any questioning;
until today no doubt or hesitation in attributing to the "good" value higher
than the "bad", higher towards promotion, usefulness, influence fruitful for
man (not forgetting the future man). "
Nietzsche, Genealogy of morals, p. 9.

Em The genealogy of morals is that the historical studies of moral take on an

important role and deciding on genealogical procedure, both as a strand of criticism, as in its
constructively the creation of new values. Nietzsche wanted to be the great "desmascarador"
of all the prejudices and illusions of humankind, one that dares to look, without fear, what
hides behind universally accepted values, behind the large and small truths better settled
behind the ideals that formed the basis for the civilization and guided the course of historical
events. And so the traditional morals and mainly outlined by Kant, religion and politics are
not for him nothing but masks that conceal a disturbing and threatening reality, whose vision
is hard to bear. The Kantian moral directs the paths easier to be pinched to subtract the full
authentic vision of life. As a starting point of your genealogical analysis of morality,
Nietzsche admits the "immorality of nature and history" (this process that his own Kant would
have recognized). Their philosophical heritage permeates a long crisis of the foundations and
values of morality, Nietzsche begins to suspect morals, pointing in a direction of character end
of all productions and human evaluations. He does not seek in their work or works justify
morality and, on the contrary takes on another role formulate and classify conceptually
different moral value experiences that occurred over time.
3

The story of the moral quest explain the origin and clarify the differences and
evaluation, for example, the good and bad in every culture and people, without stopping what
it calls and sorts of moral prejudices, such as compassion. To treat as a moral problem,
Nietzsche questions the value of truth and her underlying impulses , its analysis has a critical
connotation, to the extent that debunks the pretense of truth of religion, metaphysics and
science, pointing to the ascetic and moral sources of the same in his third essay of the book
Genealogy of morals.
Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche have philosophical projects original critics,
which diverge in their categories although at times present certain convergence not only in
their formulations, but in their own assumptions and conceptions of morality and human
nature. For Nietzsche: the prerequisite for the preaching of the word moral is moral action
itself. In his words "there are no moral phenomena, only a moral interpretation of
phenomena". On the other hand and, indeed, when performing a metaphysics of morals and
substantiate the morals, Kant tries to retrieve at certain times, values of human actions such
as, for example: not to act out of interest a bias by which one can think of the conditions that
would make an action in moral action.

PROBLEMATIC
For Kant, morale is already itself a practice towards goal, while all of laws ordering
unconditionally, according to which we must act. Want from their respective philosophical
moral support system in General, and that the fundamental concept of morality is the
obligation and duty, this "duty" that expresses a certain need, which can be doubled, i.e. There
is a need of the means and the need for order. The first does not generate an obligation itself,
what makes us want the media only if you want the ends. To be, in moral, obligation towards
the term, it is first necessary that there is an absolute end. Succeeds, but that we also find in
the consciousness of duty, moral law, which is also a principle practice, because ordering,
causes the voluntary action. This moral law to Kant's categorical imperative that prescribes of
unconditional and universal way.
Kant was aware that our actions are, in most cases, if not always, concerned as our
inclinations. It remains, however, whether this could invalidate a semantic criterion, by means
of which Kant had set up the conditions which regulate the morality of our actions. This
question seems to gain a decisive edge in the work of Nietzsche that prescribes that any
4

valuation of a moral Act requires a pre-understanding than is moral. The latter would not be a
chapter of human reason, but the point to which converges all preaching of human nature and
of their actions.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the moral philosophy, without resorting to
experience, in the framework of the duties of a rational being as such, and not only of man.
Not intend to organize a superhuman morals Kant; It is proposed only to point out that the
principle of morality should be taken, not from observation of human nature globally
considered, but only the concept of being rational, excluding, therefore any considerations
that support what the man is oblivious to reason. The experience in nothing competes for the
validity of the moral law, which must be absolutely rational, but it is essential for its
implementation as a matter of fact.
Kant is not intended to expose a perspective that indicate what the behavior more
beneficial to men, nor analyze what is, in fact, the moral behavior of human beings, but only
establish the a priori principles of morality. For Kant's morality that depends only and
immediately of the subject, and therefore only the good will, once the subject by itself can do
nothing more than be the author or Lord of maximum, according to which the will is
determined. This concept of morality in bottom derives from the Christian concept of value
that might be considered such, unconditionally and in all respects, but assuming the goodness
of intention.
For Nietzsche, the man is a child of "humus" and is, therefore, body and will not only
survive, but to win. Their true "virtues" are: pride, joy, health, sexual love, enmity, worship,
good habits, the unwavering desire, discipline of the intelligentsia, the will to power. But
these virtues are apangios of only a few, and it is to those few who life is made. In fact,
Nietzsche is opposed to any kind of egalitarianism and mainly to undercover legalism,
attentive to the Kantian sense through an inflexible law, i.e. the categorical imperative:
"Proceed in all its actions so that the norm of their conduct may become a universal law".
These criticisms were due to hostility of Nietzsche in face of the rationalism that soon
refuted as pure irrationality. For he, Kant is nothing more than a moral fanatic. For Nietzsche
the man is irreducible individuality, to which the limits and taxes for a reason that hinders the
life remain strangers to herself, like masks that can and should be released. In Nietzsche,
unlike Kant, the world has no order, structure, shape and intelligence. Him things "dancing
feet of chance" and only art can transfigure the disorder of the world in beauty and make
acceptable what is problematic and terrible in his life.
5

To accomplish this investigation on the morals and values, Nietzsche idealises a

method, to which the baptized of pedigree method. This method is more than simply
investigating the history of our supreme value references, but also to make a new assessment
of the value of these values, therefore, is not only a study of the genesis of values, but above
all of the value of this Genesis.
It is with this intention that Nietzsche has its task, for example, in the prologue of his
Genealogy of morals, on which you want to submit a "knowledge of the conditions and
circumstances from which they were born [moral values], under which developed and
modified" and, therefore, takes the "moral as a consequence, as a symptom, as a mask, like
tartuferia, like disease, as misunderstanding; but also [...] as a cause, as a remedy, as a
stimulant, as inhibition, like poison "(GM, Prologue, 6).
In this study of the value of the values, Nietzsche makes harsh criticism the idea of
absolute truth and universal moral values (both that Kant is always mentioned in his works
without that it effectively write his name, and usually Kant is mentioned in a sarcastic way).

CONCLUSION
Nietzsche's critique of the Kantian moral more than transcribe a dissonance from
different perspectives about the moral action, sufficiently exploited by interpreters of these
philosophers, seems to point to an inability to provide the moral rational enough subsidies to
ensure the validity of their objective standards absolutely.
The diagnosis that the philosophy of Nietzsche's morality is not a physician,
unbeliever of healing, shall provide his patient of a miraculous elixir able only to extend its
life for a very short time. His philosophy is not a review of morals. She intends to show that
any discourse on the moral emerges from a moral and assumes. With Nietzsche philosophy
becomes not amoral, as some erroneously believe interpreters. She happens to be the location
of the complaint that proclaims that there is no moral that is not rooted in a metaphysical
understanding of man. To debug and submit the roots of this metaphysical conception: the
genealogy of morals which, on the one hand, put the task of exposing the moral, so to speak,
of Flock, Christian-oriented; on the other hand, presents the historical, psychological and
social roots of the whole discourse on morals. The criticism of morality as herd the genealogy
of morals, we will see how the philosophy of Nietzsche is configured as a critique of the
6

Kantian moral, noting that the critical point this neuralgic lies in the presentation of the
contradiction of the Kantian attempt to think a disinterested moral.
Nietzsche's critique of the Kantian moral reaches the heart of Kant's claim of
providing the morals of a metaphysical level to grant him the privilege of not being subject to
any human evaluation, contingent and transitory. Morale would be safeguarded the cultures,
history, even of sensitive structure of men, by complaining to his compliance with an act
strictly rational, immune to bad weather of the senses. I.e., for not being subordinate to any
human feeling and therefore no human interest, the moral ends the idea that we can
disentangle ourselves from our historical conditions to accomplish what Kant calls the
Kingdom of ends. And even though this realm does not correspond to a supra-sensvel world,
he joins the story in the form of a teleology and, consequently, a metaphysics, this made,
stuck on the idea of the necessity of the development of reason.
I think we can interpret the thought of Nietzsche as heir to the philosophical legacy of
Kant, especially where this has to "enlightening" and critical to Metaphysics, for both
Nietzsche and Kant, the clarification implies emancipation, ability to think and act for
themselves, without the direction on the part of others. We note, moreover, that the estimates
for us awarded a man focuses, not on the fact that he fulfill the Act prescribed by the law, but
in its intention to make "good morals", in their goodwill, since the only compliance with Act
material may be inspired by mobiles as the pleasure or interest, whose ideal result is the
Supreme goodthe Union of virtue and happiness. The main targets of Nietzschean criticism as
well seen in this study are the Kantian moral understanding that Nietzsche, did not carry out
systematic studies on the philosophical method and on the Moral philosophy of Kant, his
main criticism is that the success of generalizante Kant, while moral philosopher, is a
theological success. For Nietzsche the reason is not the Foundation of determination of the
will of humans, moral motivation is real and not from a law resulting from a process of
abstract thought. The intimate and eternal being of man does not consist in reason, like you
wanted, but in the will as Kant clarifies Nietzsche.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
NIETZSCHE, F. Genealogy of morals. John Tradescant the Younger Paulo Csar Souza. So Paulo:
Companhia das Letras, 1998.
NIETZSCHE, F. Beyond good and evil. John Tradescant the Younger Paulo Csar
Souza. Companhia das Letras, 1992.
7

KANT, I. Grounds of the metaphysics of morals. John Tradescant the Younger

Antonio Pinto de Carvalho. So Paulo: National Publishing Company, 1964.
KANT, I. Critique of practical reason. John Tradescant the Younger V. Rohden. So
Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2002.
GIACOIA Jr, Oswaldo. Nietzsche X Kant: a permanent dispute regarding freedom, autonomy and
duty. Rio de Janeiro: Casa da palavra, So Paulo: House of knowledge, 2012.
OLIVEIRA, rico Andrade M. de. Nietzsche's critique of the Kantian moral: for a
moral minimum. Notebooks Nietzsche 27, 2010.
CAMUS, Albert. The Angry Man. John Tradescant the Younger Valerie Rumjanek. Rio de Janeiro.
Record, 1996.