There is no universal morality
Although Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have distinctive views on morality, both come to a similar conclusion, that morality is not universal. Morality can either be suspended or has no basis in reality. Kierkegaard believes that morality and faith are paradoxically incompatible, hence morality cannot be universal. Nietzsche believes we occupy different perspectives of reality, hence different moral perspectives as well, and that most moral systems diminish and even negate the meaning of life and nature. These differing views on morality will be demonstrated by first exploring Kierkegaard’s model of faith, including his concept of infinite resignation, his distinction between the tragic hero and the knight of faith and the relationship between faith and ethics (morality). This position will be contrasted with Nietzsche’s preference for naturalism in morality versus what he terms anti-natural morality, followed by his explanations of some of the profound errors made in justifying the causes of morality.
Kierkegaard’s explains faith as dialectic process with a three part model. He starts with individual wellbeing which involves valuing the ascetic, the finite. He then progresses to the ethical, or the infinite level, while still preserving the individual. The final step moves on to faith, integrating the individual (finite) and the ethical (infinite) with faith (finite plus infinite, a paradox.)
Infinite resignation is what he terms the ‘leap’ made when transitioning from the ascetic level to the ethical level. The tragic hero is an example of this process of resigning the finite, the ascetic. The tragic hero is a symbolic image of the ethical point of view and able to make the movement of infinite resignation but not the movement of faith.
Unlike the tragic hero, the knight of faith is able to make the movement of faith. In order to make this jump from the ethical level to the faith level, a paradoxical temporary suspension of ethics (morals) is required. Faith absurdly brings the finite and infinite together. A knight of faith rolls the ascetic level into the ethical level thereby achieving faith. The leap of faith is a miracle and it cannot be forced to happen. The knight of faith has no distinguishing features and cannot be identified. The most mundane person could be a knight of faith.
Faith is not supposed to be rationally grounded, it is an emotional personal relationship, which is both absurd and paradoxical. The defining feature of faith is paradox, absurdity. This is viewed by Kierkegaard as a feature, not a bug. This paradox is a desirable trait of faith, not a problem, it is actually the true value of faith. Kierkegaard believes that faith runs contrary to the ethical (morality). It does not supersede it or replace ethics, faith renders ethics (morals) inapplicable. Kierkegaard submits that from the ethical point of view the individual can only be a temptation, something to be brought in line with the ethical, never superseding it. However from the point of view of faith, ethics are not universal, the individual is higher than the ethical…a very existential position.
Nietzsche negates faith and God, advocating for a naturalistic morality, one of evaluating life and nature from the point of view of inside nature, not from beyond it, contrary or transcendent to nature (like God). He calls this a healthy morality, one “ruled by an instinct of life.”
Conversely, anti-natural morality turns precisely against the instincts of life, condemning those instincts, a revolt against life itself. It promotes distinctions between appearance and reality, devalues and limits nature and is based on ascetic values of self-denial. This involves denying pleasure and the significance and meaning of this world. Most common moral systems are anti-natural moralities, having ascetic values as a major component, with self-denial being their major focus.
The justification for these moral systems based on anti-naturalism are rooted in fallacy. The primary error being that of confusing cause and effect. Correlation does not imply causation. Nietzsche believes you are what you are by nature, you have a certain facticity which is a part of your self-conception that is not created by us. Facticity is aspects of ‘givenness’, things we did not fashion and cannot necessary alter, such as our embodiment, historical situation, socio-economic status, and sex/gender. What matters is how you shape and arrange your lives, including your (subjective) morality, in relation to this facticity or givenness. People are shaped by their facticity and their values and morals follow from that, not the other way around. Your morals and values only make sense for others of the same type, with a similar facticity. We are not all the same, moral constitutions are innate and so specific moral outlooks should not be looked on as universals. A one size fits all morality is a basic error of moral thinking.
Some moral attitudes are based on the error of false causality, either looking for a cause when there is none or fabricating an illusory cause. For example, Nietzsche believes that what produces or causes actions is not necessarily consciousness, there are factors produced by our facticity which are beyond our control such as instinct, emotions and habit. Unconscious or subconscious influences are mostly in control of our lives.
Nietzsche believes that moral judgements relate to realities that are not real. He submits “that there are no moral facts at all.” If there is no consistent morality, then efforts at any type of moral improvement are futile. They are not only a waste of time; as Nietzsche elaborates on, they have the detrimental effect of ‘taming the human beast.”
In conclusion, in my interpretation of the reading, Kierkegaard believes that not only is morality suspended in the case of faith but morality is rendered inapplicable and a moot point. There is no universal morality when faith is involved. Nietzsche believes that the fact that people’s facticity’s are different implies their moralities are different. Morality is not only not universal for all, the proffered causes and reasons for morality are mired in error, the basic foundations of morality are suspect. Neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche believe there is a universal morality, all ethical positions must be suspended for the Kierkegaard’s knight of faith or can be negated by facticity or are based on false premises for followers of Nietzsche.