Four Great Errors- Reaction

The first of the errors Nietzsche has observed is to deceive ourselves and reverse causality.  By reversing causality, we mistake the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. Here is one of his examples: “The newspaper reader says: this party destroys itself by making such a mistake. My higher politics says: a party which makes such mistakes has reached its end; it has lost its sureness of instinct.”  One would normal claim that the mistake caused the party to be ruined but Nietzsche determines that the real cause of their destruction was that they were in a ruinous state, otherwise the party would not have made such a fatal mistake.  After describing this error, Nietzsche uses it to criticize all of religion and morality, calling their formula the “great original sin of reason.”  The formula he refers to is: do x actions and do not do y actions to become happy. By living virtuously, one will become happy.  Nietzsche believes this formula commits the great error of reversing causality: virtuous living is a product of a happy person.  A happy person instinctively performs certain actions and shies away from others.

            I fully appreciate his criticism of confusing cause and effect; however, I wonder if some of the disagreement arises from lack of specificity in the defined system and start and end systems.  I will use his example to demonstrate my concern.  He states that it is wrong to say the mistake caused the ruin of the political party; that it was the ruinous state which caused this mistake. Both can be correct depending upon how specific one is in describing the events.  He is correct that the current state lead to a predisposition for the mistake but if we were to add specificity to the newspaper’s version, ‘this party destroys itself in the public eye by making such a mistake’, then one can see why the mistake can exist as the cause for such an end.  Nietzsche is right to question our understanding of causality though some confusion may exist simply from poor communication of meaning. 

            Nietzsche’s second part within his discussion of confusing cause and effect is to relate this confusion to religion and morality while promoting his ‘ethics of instinct’.  At best, his attempt his hasty.  For the purpose of this writing, I shall grant that virtue is the product of a happy disposition (instinct being the determinant of morality) but his refutation of religion and traditional morality is grossly underdeveloped.  His account states that one cannot perform certain actions and become happy, one must be happy and follow their instincts.  Except, Nietzsche does not provide an explanation for the origin of these instincts.  With nothing to go on, I must surmise that instincts are either something one is born with or gained through experience (or some combination of the two).

If instincts are something we are just born with, then he would have to conclude that some people are happy and others are not without room for change. However, he does not do this as he states, “Every mistake in every sense is the effect of the degeneration of instinct, of the disintegration of the will,” (Four Great Errors).  Through this, he admits that experience plays some role in instinctual behavior, otherwise how could someone stray from them? Because he allows some influence from experience and religious doctrine/moral codes are a part of experience, Nietzsche does not have sufficient reason to toss them out completely.

Word Count 581