Similarities Between Mill And Nietzsche

In the eighteen hundreds two influential philosophers were born thirty eight years apart. Although John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche’s lives overlapped; they both have different views regarding moral belief and the basis of morals in life. One aspect that sets these two philosophers apart is that while in London, Mill continued to fight for equal rights for women; the Germany resident, Nietzsche, believed that women were infinitely inferior to men. This, however, was not the only factor that separated these two minds. Mill focused his findings on the morality of society and the beliefs that all human beings should live by; while Nietzsche focused his writings on the human nature that went against the belief of living by a set moral code. His views were very individualized as opposed to viewing society as a whole and looking at doing actions for the greater good. Due to the fact that both of these men lived during roughly the same time period, if these two influential philosophers were to have met their debate would have influenced prominent beliefs among fellow and future philosophers. If a philosopher were to look back on these two men’s lives they would be able to come up with a sound argument by looking at Nietzsche’s
view in The Genealogy of Morals against Mill’s view of overall utilitarianism, then moving on to Mill’s rebuttal argument using his writing Utilitarianism.
In Nietzsche’s book The Genealogy of Morals he uses three essays to portray his point of human nature. The first essay is about “Good and Evil” or “Good and Bad” (GM I.1), this focuses on the difference between the morality of the masters, and the morality of the slaves. The masters were the nobles and warriors; this group of individuals were viewed good by Nietzsche for having health, strength, and power, all aspects that were thought of as desirable. The slaves that Nietzsche referred to were the ones with any undesirable trait that did not fit into the category of the masters. If a person was poor, unhealthy and weak they were placed into the slave class which was, “… transformed into the concept ‘bad’” (GM I.4). Later on in the essay, Nietzsche talks about “The slave revolt in morality begins with ressentiment” (GM I.10). This idea of resentment put the thought of the slave class below the master class. The hatred that is laid upon the master class slowly becomes a part of the slave morality. The next essay discusses Nietzsche’s view that human nature learns from pain and suffering and that each individual must go through this “suffering” to learn from their mistakes. He also takes a look at justice and law. Nietzsche claims that the laws do not stem from resentment or revenge but merely from the knightly or master class bringing order to the common people, the slave class. The laws are there for the people that are guilty, which is a feeling a person has when they know there was another action that they should have done. Nietzsche says to use punishment, “as a means for rendering harmless, of preventing harm” (GM II.13). The punishment is meant to instill fear to all those around to try and avoid, “any further spread of disturbance” (GM II.13). According to Nietzsche, society should be separated into two distinct classes, the slave morality and the master morality, and punishment and suffering should be utilized to retain order among the individuals in the slave class.
Though Nietzsche lived longer than Mill, Mill have very different ideas about the morality of humanity and how society should live. Contrary to Nietzsche’s idea of a separated society between the good and the bad individuals Mill believed everyone is created equal. Mill’s ideas about society differed from Nietzsche for he believed they best way to live is through utility and no one is better or worse than another. The ideals that Nietzsche had about the separate classes were the complete opposite of Mills view. A question Mill would raise to Nietzsche’s ideas of morality would be, if the slave morality is built of resentment towards the master class but then due to the hatred felt by the people of the master morality they become a part of the slave morality, who in society are the masters that everyone else resents? If all of society was equal there would be no way to start out as a part of the master then move down to the slave morality due to being exposed to the pain of being hated.
To continue Mill also goes against Nietzsche’s ideas about suffering and pain. Mills states, “… happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (II, p.7). Punishment is not to be done merely for guilt but to better the society as a whole. Laws are not meant to scare from further disturbances but to be changed for every individual case. Mill continues his argument again the punishment ideas of Nietzsche by stating, “…pleasure ad freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends,” and, “…all desirable things… are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” (II, p.7). This goes to show that fear is not a leading factor to prevent any other disturbances but simply knowing that by doing an action to promote their own pleasure instead of pain will overall affect the good of the society. Another belief Mill says is that justice and punishment is not meant to take away the individual rights of citizens. Though in Mill’s Utilitarian society the individual is less important that the society as a whole, he realizes that if the rights are taken away then chaos would ensue.
Both Nietzsche and Mill have great points for each arguments, however I would personally agree with Mill’s view on a Utilitarian society as compared to the separated classes that Nietzsche argues.
The idea of pain that Nietzsche presents is completely against my beliefs that as a society we do not want to be in pain and that we strive to not feel the guilt that Nietzsche says leads individuals to inflict pain. Mill explains that to achieve the ultimate end, happiness, is to live a life in the absence of pain and to strive to reduce the pain for the fellow individuals in society. The ideas Mill shares about living as a whole instead of focusing all efforts on the individuals happiness is something that should happen in all
societies.
If an individual does not believe societies should function for the better of those surrounding them Mill also believes that the individualism of societies can still exist under a general moral system. Many would argue that utilitarian societies are taking away any form of individuality someone has but that is not true in Mills case. He simply believes that society is better when not only the individuals are important but the whole community takes precedence to create a uniform happiness. Another main reason I agree with Mill view on society is that I am a woman and he views every person as an equal, including women. Women are a part of society that does not deserve to be oppressed!
If a philosopher were to look back on Nietzsche and Mill’s lives they would be able to configure a sound argument by looking at Nietzsche’s view in The Genealogy of Morals against Mill’s view of overall utilitarianism, then moving on to Mill’s rebuttal argument using his writing Utilitarianism. Both philosophers were concerned with cultivating human excellence, but Mill recognizes that there is a need for a unified moral in society to have a standard to live by so society does not become destructive. Both philosopher believe in a growing excellence for society, yet Nietzsche separates the different classes into master, or slave while Mill see that by allowing the “slave” class the same opportunities and treating them as equals the excellence of society grows. If all are treated equal they all receive the same education and that is a key element is achieving excellence.