Nietzsche
Nietzsche was a German philosopher who believed in rather unconventional ways of acquiring individual moral ethics that was common to many people. He believed that the need to conform to moral ethics should not be motivated by an afterlife expectation as stipulated in the teachings of Christianity. He believed that human beings could do what was required instead of having to use the notion that if people did what was morally acceptable they would have the privilege of enjoying an afterlife. He postulated that such an argument human beings were weakened in person by such postulations to make use of their strength to realize the societal moral aspects and make use of them effectively. Nietzsche outlined that the aspect that was generally considered to be the truth was nothing but an illusion created by human beings about the collective ideas gathered over time. (Friedrich 125) Aspects such as personal experience and the need to survive amicably with neighbors, significantly determined the resolution of persons. In the writings published in ‘unfashionable observations,’ there is a general observation that Nietzsche criticizes the kind of society that has emerged in Germany. (Friedrich 112) He attacks society with irony stating that what is being considered by many people as being acceptable is an illusion. He goes on to outline that over the years the community has continuously nurtured a culture that outwardly seems to be favorable but on a closer look is marred with selfishness and evil deeds. Nietzsche demonstrates his pessimistic approach in an attempt to better and criticize society. There is a general feeling that he wants to distance himself from the society that he belongs. Furthermore, Nietzsche does not show any appreciation whatsoever for the efforts that humanity has invested in an attempt to make the world a better place. (Friedrich 103)
Spangler
On the other hand, Spengler is much more practical in his criticism and even spares some of his writing towards the appreciation of humanity. Spengler appreciates the fact for many years through various aspects man has always attempted to make his life better and through this efforts invention and innovation in various sectors have been attained. Although, he observes that there is a general erosion of morals, he does not fail to appreciate the way people have attempted to deal with this situation using such aspects as art. (Spengler 98) His approach is rather practical and avoiding harsh criticism as used by Nietzsche. Spengler gives the impression that he is part of this world and acknowledges that certain aspects need to be changed when people work together. In addition, he approaches moral from more open point of view and in the event avoids being judgmental. He brings into aspect the idea of variety by stating that each and every community have their own ethical codes that they conform to, and it is not compulsory that all communities have the same codes. This is because codes are the guidelines that are unique to each and every society due to the fact that different societies undergo and experience different challenges. Furthermore, social structures are constructed over time to enable human beings to co-exist comfortably. Therefore, it would be unfair to impose upon another culture the moral codes of a different culture. However, in the aspect of the role of religion on the construction of moral ethics within a society Spengler tends to agree with Nietzsche. Spengler outlines that Christianity was not the one that has nurtured ‘Faustian’ but that ‘Faustian’ has nurtured Christianity. This observation is actually true because there are many denominations within Christianity with each having varied principles. Furthermore, there is the general observation that Christianity principles change from time to time with regard to the unique societal changes faced. However, Spangler still maintains that there is still an opportunity of human beings to foster change when there is the will. He particularly maintains that Christianity has played a significant role in acting as the control and the motivation that encourages persons to act morally. He observes that the teachings are applicable within all cultures and therefore the aspect of cultural diversity is catered for. (Spengler 82)
Discussion
Looking at Spangler and Nietzsche, there is an observation that they are both similar and different in their arguments in more ways than one. Both philosophers agree that there is a general erosion of morals within cultures and that something needs to be done. They explain that cultures are diverse but the one common denominator among the cultures is that there is erosion of morals. The point at which they differ is that they use different ways to express their arguments. Spangler is more practical in his criticism and actually provides room for the hope of betterment. He provides various examples of how humanity has continuously strived to make life better through such aspects as art. This shows optimism on his part. On the other hand Nietzsche is much harsher in his criticism and even gives the impression that all is lost. Nietzsche even outlines that there is no way that moral ethics can be redeemed when people depended on Christianity.
Work Cited
Friedrich, Nietzsche. Unfashionable Observations: Second Piece. Trans. Richard Gray. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986.
Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Trans. Charles Francis. New York: Vintage, 1922.