The final paper should be a comparison of Kant, utilitarianism, Hume, and Nietzsche. The first three approaches to morality are affirmative: Kant emphasizes universal rules of reason, utilitarianism relies on the empirical calculation of outcomes, and Hume sees morality grounded in feelings of natural sympathy toward others. Nietzsche challenges all these approaches, tracing the immoral origin and purpose of morality, which for him is essentially a tool used for revenge and social advancement. For Nietzsche, there are no such things as universal reason and natural sympathy, and the calculation of outcomes is based on a naïve idea of progress and benevolence.
Given this constellation, the first question that arises is: does morality hold up to Nietzsche’s challenge? Does it have a genuine value, and if this is so, which approach to morality escapes his criticism? Is all morality refuted by Nietzsche?
The second question that arises is which approach to morality is best suited for dealing with the problems of our world, such as environmental damage, inequality and unemployment, violence against women, war, etc. In thinking about such problems – you can pick whatever problem you want – what are the moral ideas that you most rely on? In claiming that certain things are good and others bad, how do you justify your claim?
This paper does not require additional sources outside of the texts we use in class. Quotations are always a good way to start; make sure that your argument is specific enough.