Sartre Vs Nietzsche

The rejection by existentialist writers of absolute moral values makes the construction of an existentialist morality a paradoxical task, but a task which nonetheless has been attempted by successive writers. Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche both attempted to replace traditional morality with an ethics based on authenticity. This essay will discuss some of the initial similarities in their approaches, and identify where and why their approaches diverge. In the course of this examination, a number of prima facie objections to their theories will be examined, and I will argue that Nietzsche goes much further to create a positive morality than is usually thought. Finally, a number of problems common to any morality based on authenticity will be discussed, and I will conclude by suggesting briefly that a new reading of Sartre and Nietzsche may have the potential to overcome these problems.

One reason that both Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche are known today as existentialist writers is that their philosophies of how we ought to
His argument is that an absolute morality forces values on everyone in a society which advance the interests only of one group of people and which for the remainder are ?life denying?. He holds that the traditional distinction between good and evil has arisen from the perspective of a group he calls the ?slaves?, and insists that, like everything else, morality is ?conditioned by perspective?.[2] He protests against the negative way in which traditional codes of conduct are framed, and the way in which they promote ascetic values like sin, humility, and self-denial. The starting point of Nietzsche?s morality is thus essentially negative?it is based on the errors he thinks have contaminated traditional thinking about morality, and on his diagnosis of the state of European