Nietzsche Debate
Should the aesthetic (beauty) dimension replace the moral (goodness) dimension?
To start I will give a description as to what I believe is the moral dimension. To explain this I will use an example of physics. We must all realize that the moral dimension is explained through the law of relativity which states that nothing is good or bad, big or small until it is related to something else. The law of relativity tells us that everything in our physical world is only made real by its relationship or comparison to something. Light only exist because we compare it to dark. Good can only exist because we compare it to bad. Hot can only exist because we compare it to cold.
Morality is a social attribute. Whenever a person counts something as ‘moral’ it is considered to be irrelevant because they are the person doing this action. It will come from their ego. All this goes to say that morality cannot exist in a singular dimension (between me and myself), but is shown through the law of relativity which only can be shown when someone teaches you of morality. Meaning the 'moral dimension' can be revealed only within a group of people.
Some reasons why the aesthetic dimension should not replace the moral dimension is because:
1. Research shows that the reason humans struggle with emotion to find solutions to their problems is related to the part of the brain called the insular cortex (insula). This is also where our emotional reactions take place. The brain is able to detect so easily when something is unfair which shows that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity. Therefore in order for our bodies to function properly we must have a sense of morals and emotions.
2. There are times where people ask “why do we need morals or values?” Well a good response to this would be: “would you rather have total chaos?” It ensures civility. Without rules we would have total anarchy. I think many of us take for granted the luxuries we enjoy living in a civilized country
To start I will give a description as to what I believe is the moral dimension. To explain this I will use an example of physics. We must all realize that the moral dimension is explained through the law of relativity which states that nothing is good or bad, big or small until it is related to something else. The law of relativity tells us that everything in our physical world is only made real by its relationship or comparison to something. Light only exist because we compare it to dark. Good can only exist because we compare it to bad. Hot can only exist because we compare it to cold.
Morality is a social attribute. Whenever a person counts something as ‘moral’ it is considered to be irrelevant because they are the person doing this action. It will come from their ego. All this goes to say that morality cannot exist in a singular dimension (between me and myself), but is shown through the law of relativity which only can be shown when someone teaches you of morality. Meaning the 'moral dimension' can be revealed only within a group of people.
Some reasons why the aesthetic dimension should not replace the moral dimension is because:
1. Research shows that the reason humans struggle with emotion to find solutions to their problems is related to the part of the brain called the insular cortex (insula). This is also where our emotional reactions take place. The brain is able to detect so easily when something is unfair which shows that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity. Therefore in order for our bodies to function properly we must have a sense of morals and emotions.
2. There are times where people ask “why do we need morals or values?” Well a good response to this would be: “would you rather have total chaos?” It ensures civility. Without rules we would have total anarchy. I think many of us take for granted the luxuries we enjoy living in a civilized country