A good life worth living, in my opinion, requires serving and meeting the needs of others, as well as those of myself . We are supposed to give selflessly to our associates, friends, neighbors and family for a good moral cause because it ultimately has a purpose. What would we reap by simply relying on our actions alone and how would this selfishness benefit society as a whole? This is where Kant and Nietzsche disagree on the definition of what is considered a good life, what is considered moral, and who has the value to decide this. I will start with Kant, because he was the first to develop his theory of morality. Kant published Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals in 1785. Kant's entire hypothesis of morality revolved around the fact that we are motivated by the logic of obligation and that we have a moral duty to oblige and respect as good beings. Kant believed that our moral actions were the result of reasoning and that our moral worth depended on the motive, not the end or consequences resulting from our actions. As rational beings, we are expected to act and behave accordingly in the interest of moral good, but with practical reason. This then results in a universal morality according to Kant. All of this was defined according to Kant's categorical imperative. These imperatives are things that one “ought” to do according to Kant. Kant believed that following one's duty was not measurable by the final means, but that it "is good only by one's will." This meant that a thing is only good if it is good in itself. He believes that under the categorical imperative, one should only act according to the maxim if doing so is voluntary according to universal law. And these maxims must be free of contradiction and intentional to be considered moral. Kant believed that we, as hum...... middle of paper ......, feel below you to elevate ourselves. If one was born into the nobility they were punished with a good virtuous life, the ignoble were condemned from the start based solely on the division of labels and the power of words. Nietzsche believed that we should have the ability, the freedom to create our own life. social choices. He believed that all individuals should be free to form their own moral compass system. He was clearly against religion and the fearmonger mentality that wanted to control one's choices and dictate what was considered moral. He demanded a radical change, that we rebuild the way we define morality. But that said, Nietzsche himself failed to offer an explicit alternative to Kant's theory of morality. Nietzsche offered nothing more than a controversial critique of Kant's almost 100-year-old system, which worked theoretically and realistically..