According to Duns Scotus, moral precepts originate in the eternal will of God, and are good simply because God has willed them into being. Nidzsche however, rejects traditional morality because it is based on the idea that all human beings have the same human nature and therefore must practice the moral values that are a consequence of that nature, such as human equality. Nietzsche wishes to replace traditional morals (Übermenschon). These people should define there own moral principals based on what is good for them as individuals rather then what is good for the common person. In fulfilling their individuality in this manner, they will rise above “the herd” and as a by-product, and will strengthen society. Nietzsche’s viewpoint complements Darwin’s theory of evolution in the sense that the different who survive in there environment strengthens the given species. Except Nietzsche’s view describes the different as being a spontaneous strength in society and should therefore be recognized as used towards society’s advancement to empower future generations to come.
Duns Scotus’ viewpoint expresses the exact opposite of Nietzsche’s view. Scotus’ view promotes the concept that everyone’s morals originate from God. He promotes the idea that all of these perceptions are out of an individuals control and are in place and directed towards everyone. Everyone must ably to these regulations, and is out of anyone’s hands to create any variation from them. This creates a very liner outlook on humanity. It limits mankind to any type of progression and improvements, but rather insists us to stick to the same old ways we’ve followed for hundreds of years. Over time, it is expected of humanity to discover new things and improve our lives over time. To limit progression kills a positive and very necessary aspect of our nature as human beings. In fact it promotes the slow destruction of out creative and productive God-given intellect.
Nietzsche’s view however, strongly supports change and progression. The difference in people is now used as an example of change and progression among society. I myself, who is considered different as opposed to others, embrace differences in other aspects of life, along side the regular life everyone else lives. This in turn makes me different in the sense that my perspective is new and broader then the average person with the potential of intellectual advancement. This extra experience gives me a better understanding of most people. Therefore encouraging me to share a strong sense of understanding, emotional support and guidance when needed. This same concept can be applied to a parent who is trying to raise there child. The whole idea is to get them to broaden there mind to everything that is in the world so that they will have enough knowledge to survive on there own. Another example of this theory is if someone decides to run for president. Not just anyone can run because there is an age minimum because it is believed that with age there is knowledge.
This is noticeable in the way that people handle moral dilemmas. Someone who doesn’t have much of an expanded understanding of they way people think, how the world works, and are intellectually grounded to one belief system have a tendency to struggle through moral dilemmas, especially if they are very complex rare situations to be in. This proves that progression, investigation and analysis of the organ of morality are necessary. If an unusual of complex situation arises in someone’s life in which it is more that likely to, that is in fact an opportunity to further study and understand the solution, and to decide why this is the best decision. This way when an even more complex dilemma arises in our community, we all would be better prepared to handle such an issue.
The way one’s attitude towards there general identity strongly affects there decision towards morality. For example, very ambitious and self-oriented people generally are generous towards decisions that will generally result in the better good for themselves. Humanitarian focused people however, are generally more concerned with the welfare of others and not so much about themselves in most cases. An over concern of others however could lead to the manipulation from others, and the slow destruction of the self. For the self-centered individual could have the same consequences, but projected on to those around them until they’re social, and spiritual self is then left in the dark. These issues are just a small and very literally general examples of the stereotypical roles found in society. These behaviors lead to the selfish or selfless choices that lead to moral problems for the person, as well as those around them.
One solution is that, if one generally unchanging teaching on morality isn’t working (e.g. Duns Scoutus Will) then we must try another approach. The best solution is to analyse those of us that have a broadened combination of different qualities. As describes in Friedrich Nietzsche’s view, we can learn from those who are different. Someone who has a natural combination of both humanitarian qualities, yet ambitious attitudes towards there own success would naturally have a balance of the two qualities, and would therefore not suffer the consequences of having the one quality in excess. This person would hold the solution that both extremes that would need to be learned in order to balance out there lifestyles. They would then learn to make better choices and decisions morally. This is an example of one of the ways society can progress through the analysis of morality, and the natural decisions made by those of us who are naturally different, as described by Nietzsche. This will better aid society’s issues as being “Stuck – in – a – rut” with the same old traditions, which simply leads man kind to repeat itself over and over again.
As described by Nietzsche, people must not be denied there fulfillment of there human nature, especially one’s individuality. People must be given this gift for a reason, otherwise why would people be born with unusual abilities and differences. These differences can be used to better improve society as a whole and give us all newer and better ideas, and progressions towards better moral practices created these superior individuals. Otherwise, we would all be stuck with the same practices century to century with a society with no advancement what so ever. Then when more and more complex issues arise, we would all simply be stranded in the dark, clueless as to how to get out.