The Problem with the "Science of Morals"

In his book Beyond Good and Evil,
Friedrich Nietzsche argues that the "Science of Morals" is a recent and presumptuous undertaking. He argues that philosophers have been too focused on providing a foundation for morality, rather than on describing the different forms of morality that have existed throughout history.

Nietzsche argues that there is no single "true" morality and that different moralities have evolved to meet the needs of different cultures and societies. He also argues that morality is not something that is "given" to us, but something that we create.

Nietzsche's critique of the "Science of Morals" is still relevant today. Many people still believe that there is a single "true" morality and that this morality can be objectively determined. However, Nietzsche's work shows that morality is a complex and ever-evolving phenomenon. There is no single "right" way to live, and what is considered moral in one culture may be considered immoral in another.

Nietzsche's work challenges us to think critically about our own moral beliefs. It forces us to ask ourselves where our moral beliefs come from, and whether they are really serving us in the best way possible.
In the CHAPTER: THE NATURAL HISTORY OF MORALS, Nietzsche (1886) specifically criticizes the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer for his views on morality. Schopenhauer argued that the fundamental principle of morality is to "harm no one, and to help everyone as much as you can." Nietzsche argues that this principle is absurd and sentimental in a world where the essence is Will to Power. He also points out that Schopenhauer himself did not live up to this principle, as he enjoyed playing the flute after dinner.

Nietzsche's critique of Schopenhauer is a reminder that morality is not always easy or straightforward. It is also a reminder that we should not blindly accept the moral beliefs that we are taught. We should always be critical of our own moral beliefs, and be willing to question them if necessary.