Post #4: Comparison between Murdoch and Nietzsche

By: Clara Ramos

                Friedrich Nietzsche and Iris Murdoch both elaborate on religion's role within morals; i.e. they try to explain how religion affects people's perception on what is moral. However, they take very different views sometimes. For example, Murdoch believes that religion helps enforce morality whereas Nietzsche believes that religion distracts people from morality and even gives them a false definition of it. In "Morality and Religion", Murdoch credits religion for being a constant reminder to people about their ethical codes. She says that the way religion constructs right and wrong makes it easier for people to return from doing evil. However, being religious does not mean that you are a definitely a virtuous person. She gives an example of how a man who is a devout Christian may end up in prison. The way she describes religion seems to portray (to me, at least) that religion's message of forgiveness can be interpreted as that doing bad things are fine because God will forgive you. This explains why the man in prison still keeps up his faith after his wrongdoings; he may believe that as long as he stays religious, he can be forgiven.

                Nietzsche's "Morality as Anti-Nature", on the other hand, elaborates on religion's strictness in a more negative hue. While Murdoch credits religion for keeping people in check on doing what is right, Nietzsche claims that religion does not give people the chance to be immoral. Instead, religion delivers people with an ultimatum: either live the way religion deems it should be lived or face terrible consequences. This is a complete opposite of the forgiving image Murdoch seems to create in her piece. Nietzsche is thoroughly convinced that religion ruins human nature in that rather than encouraging good behavior, it condemns bad behavior. Nietzsche also talks about the Four Great Errors, or four ways in which humans mistake morality. For example, the first error he introduces is "[t]he error of confusing cause and effect" (p. 351) in which he elaborates on how humans mistakenly reason their actions. He says that people say that one's actions will lead to a certain result or behavior, i.e. doing A will bring about B. However, he reasons that the opposite is true: behaving a certain way will lead to specific actions to be done. In other words, being B will make a person more likely to do A.

Professor Middleton; CAL-103-H