Morality as Anti-Nature

ENG 104 Paper 2

In “Morality as Anti-Nature,” Nietzsche’s argument against Christianity is a combination of both right and wrong. He was right about natural desires having a double standard in the eyes of Christian believers. Christianity forbids behavior, unless it benefits the church. He was also right that feelings like guilt do not come from priests after a person has sinned. He explains how feelings are from a person’s inner conscience. Although his argument was valid in some parts, I didn't believe some of his statements. He was wrong that people should live without religious influence and rules. Nietzsche was also wrong when he said all priest and religious men are arrogant. In his argument, Nietzsche uses fallacies to influence his reader to believe his opinion; although his ideas are correct such as Christian priests cannot influence a person’s feelings, double standards of temptation in the church. While I agree with most of Nietzsche beliefs, I found some flaws in his argument. I disagreed on his ideas about how all priests are trying stopping free will, where one’s emotions come from, and his belief that all people desire a natural life.

Nietzsche’s “Morality as Anti-Nature” is an argument written against the views of Christianity. He begins his piece with the idea that the church is taking human will away from people by stealing their right to think and act for themselves. Nietzsche describes this as, “spiritualization of passion” (p. 1). This concept means that people are only allowed to exercise their natural passions the way the church wants. They are restricted in their activities by fear of punishment through sin. They criticize human’s passions and therefore criticizing human life. In Nietzsche’s opinion, religious followers are not being allowed to live the life they were meant for because of the control of the priests and God. He believes people should disregard what their religion says and ultimately live by their conscience. He uses the...