"Nietzsche: morality; "How ought I to be?"
             Nietzsche abhorred all morality; he felt it is fodder for the mindless masses (the herd). It deadens and destroys the individual, condemns creativity, and gives man no credit to make choices. It assumes man can not know what to do, so it lays down pre-made decisions for him to mindlessly follow. It ignores the nature of human instinct and stifles the growth of mankind.
             Moralists and philosophers both sought an order for the universe and a basis on which to define a universal morality. Nietzsche throws these ideas out the window, claiming no order to the universe, but instead chaos. Likewise he felt that one doctrine of morality, while being good for one man, might be the worst thing for another. All societies have moral structures but those structures vary widely from a single society to the next. Conventional morality wants clear-cut, black-&-white definitions of good and evil. Nietzsche sought an ideal "beyond good or evil." He even went as far as to claim evil is good – it serves as a means for comparison and a catalyst for change.
             Nietzsche had little esteem for the works of Kant; there can be no categorical imperative in a chaotic world. Kant's view of the moral man is one whose moral duty always takes precedence over his natural inclinations. This places man in a state of "constant irritability in the face of all natural stirrings . . . armed against himself with sharp and mistrustful eyes." Kant's morality equates to shame – shame for his natural inclinations, and shame for not attaining unattainable moral standards.
             Kant claimed acts of love, charity and brotherhood did not qualify as moral acts unless they were done completely for selfless motives. According to Nietzsche these acts are usually performed out of avarice, greed and egoism. His interpretation of the categorical imperative might read, "Do u...