The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics

by Arthur Schopenhauer, Christopher Janaway (Translator)

Arthur Schopenhauer's The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics (1841) consists of two groundbreaking 'On the Freedom of the Will' and 'On the Basis of Morals'. The essays make original contributions to ethics and display Schopenhauer's erudition, prose-style and flair for philosophical controversy, as well as philosophical views that contrast sharply with the positions of both Kant and Nietzsche. Written accessibly, they do not presuppose the intricate metaphysics which Schopenhauer constructs elsewhere. This is the first English translation of these works to re-unite both essays in one volume. It offers a new translation by Christopher Janaway, together with an introduction, editorial notes on Schopenhauer's vocabulary and the different editions of his essays, a chronology of his life, a bibliography, and a glossary of names.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Germany, German Literature, Classics

334 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1841

About the author

Arthur Schopenhauer was born in the city of Danzig (then part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth; present day Gdańsk, Poland) and was a German philosopher best known for his work The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer attempted to make his career as an academic by correcting and expanding Immanuel Kant's philosophy concerning the way in which we experience the world.

He was the son of author Johanna Schopenhauer and the older brother of Adele Schopenhauer.

Reviews

[Nyaz salh · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a difficult read for me at the beginning since this was my first Philosophical book in english. i didn’t want to rush reading the book and it took me more than two months to finish it.
As he quotes in the book “preaching morals is easy,Grounding morals is hard” Schopenhauer tries to ground morals .
In the first essay which is On the freedom of the will he starts by putting forth the presupposition that human actions like any other actions in the universe are subject to law of causality. And regarding Causality he says on page 56 “the law of causality is firmly established a priory as the universal rule to which all real objects of the external world ,without exception are subject”.Schopenhauer differentiate between human consciousness from animals by the type of motivation that affect our consciousness and our will. Humans are able to apprehend abstract ideas from external world and these abstract ideas which is “Thinking and thoughts” widen our mental horizon which can grasp the absent ,the past and the future while animals consciousness is limited to motives working in the present and this makes humans relatively free only in that they are not merely influenced by intuitive (present )motives.Schopenhauer says in order for a cause to bring an effect,it has to interact with “the will” and the innate character .he says the will is a natural force that is only manifested when there is a sufficient motive and it self cannot be explained further.
And he also uses Kant’s empirical and intelligible character to explain why we feel responsible and morally responsible for our deeds(conscience).he says (the will) “as a thing in itself “belongs to it absolute freedom and it is independent of Causality but this is a transcendental freedom ,not occurring in” the world of appearance”.our conscience appears to be concerned with which we have done but actually and fundamentally it concerns itself with our intelligible character whether we could have been someone else and acted otherwise which is impossible.
in the second essay he tries to set grounds for morality, he rejects the imperative form of ethics and says it applies only in theological morals.and unlike Kant he isn’t setting a priory nor absolute laws for grounding morals.he is concerned with which type of actions we give genuine moral worth and which incentives are we responsive to to act morally.any action that has the agent’s well-being and woe at its end is an egoistical action and has no moral worth .
Most of the paragraphs is about the effectiveness of the natural human characteristics which is compassion.he says negative incentives like (injustice and violence) effect our compassion and in these situations we act morally and our action would not rest on egoistic incentives.regarding improvements Schopenhauer says character plays an important role and there are characters that respond only to egoistic incentives,so one can persuade such person to do a philanthropic action only through delusions that the action contributes to his own advantage.
at the end of the book he explain the metaphysical bases which to be honest I didn’t understand,once again i am at the beginning of my philosophical journey .
so this is what I grasped from this book ,Arthur Schopenhauer is famous for his pessimism as himself says he is like Dante he leads to Hell.he tries to explain human nature and concluded from it his moral bases.although I really found the book very interesting and I liked his methods explaining the material but I think grounding morality and human nature needs more investigations and more evidences than he used in the book.

[Sean Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

His essay On the Freedom of the Will stunned me. What I got out of it was this: We aren't well and truly free after all. The decisions we make are due to our consciousness of other things, our experience in space, time and causality. Our ego, or self-consciousness, suggests we can make decisions, however we have already willed that decision; deep inside us, in this realm of the mind, our will has sort of carved out our true choices and decisions due to the inner world's experience with the outer world. If one says, "I can walk right, or left, or forward or backward," one is given the illusion of free choice (liberum arbitrium indifferentiae); however we have already willed the true decision long before our ego or self-consciousness at the forefront has accepted what 'decision' to take.

Schopenhauer is as German as it gets: Intense, incredibly smart and disciplined. Using quotes and sources from other important texts by the world's greatest thinkers and poets (Augustine, Hume, Kant, Goethe etc), he defends this philosophical idea right to the last sentence. What we get is an incredibly well-written, deep and rewarding piece of philosophical literature.

This book contains another essay, On the Basis of Morals, which I did not read, hence the four star rating.

[Taka · Rating 4 out of 5]

A small masterpiece--

This is probably a great entry point for Schopenhauer's philosophy—I read The World as Will and Representation (Volume 1) first and had a good grasp of his metaphysics and ethics, but this little book—clocking at 257 pages—was still an illuminating read. In the first essay on freedom of will, he pretty much demolishes any attempt at finding it, at least in the world of senses/appearances, and that's where you find still valid psychological insights like you can't choose to want something and the like. His discussion of how people mistake the freedom of will as something else entirely was quite amazing (we think we're free to do as we please based on the fact that we can do what we will, but then that's a misleading answer because the real question in a nutshell is, "Can we will what we will?" the answer to which is in the negative).

The second essay is also really good. Continuing his bulldozing of German philosophy, he dismantles Kant's categorical imperative in its various formulations. His main argument against it is that it utterly fails to take into account the reality of moral judgments, that it ultimately rests on egoism. His positive account of the basis of morality on compassion is superbly clear, simple, and convincing. Though I had some squabbles with his claim about our indifference toward another's happiness as such (don't we feel energized or maybe warmed by the sight of, say, people meeting at the airport?), I couldn't help but nod along to his classification of moral incentives into three (egoism, malice, and compassion) as well as his argument for why any moral action is and should be based on compassion alone (and not on, say, Kant's universal maxim or any hokum human reason can concoct) and the relationship between compassion and egoism (how they vary in the distinction we make between the I and not-I). All of this mostly jibed with Buddhist thoughts as I understand them, though Schopenhauer disagrees with it over the possibility of changing one's character: he says it's impossible, that we're stuck with our innate character, but Buddhists might say we can change it to some extent through prolonged meditation practice (which is borne out by science).

All in all, another great read from a great man (but also flawed like any human being, because he shows the slightest trace of anti-Semitism and is glaringly misogynist. I don't want to throw all the good he has to offer just because of those flaws, though).

[anthony neo · Rating 3 out of 5]

imagine mieć beefa z kimś, bo myśli inaczej niż ty. iconic

[ExtraGravy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book contains two essays: On the Freedom of the Human Will and On the Foundation of Morals.

(Five Star) The first was a strikingly powerful and lucid exposition on deterministic necessity and freedom. Easily the best treatment of the topic I've ever read. I would suggest it to anyone who thinks this subject is unclear or under debate by serious persons.

(Three Star) The second was the lesser of the two and while I enjoyed his grounding of morals in compassion as a natural capability, which really got me thinking, the rest of the essay wondered a bit and I lost the thread growing more unclear as to his purpose and message. He was constrained by the nature of the contest to which I attribute my confusion. Several interesting ideas were put forth but not pursued far enough for me to grasp them, but far enough to spark interest and a hope that I can find them more clearly expounded in one of his other writings.

I suggest these essays to anyone who likes Schopenhauer and enjoys his wit (and him ripping on his favorite targets :-), and anyone with specific interest in the topics covered.

[Kacper Wojda]

Wyjątkowo bez oceny, bo jestem fanem Gustava Radbrucha wiec ocena nie byłaby nawet w najmniejszym stopniu rzetelna XD

[Dara · Rating 2 out of 5]

Czytałam: *Erystyka. O wolności ludzkiej woli*
Str 265/265

ogólnie nie mój typ książki, ale jak zaczęłam czytać to trzeba skończyć xD strasznie dziwnym językiem napisane

[Jens · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read two translations of this work: Cambridge university press (2009) by Christopher Janaway & Oxford translation (2010) by Cartwright & Erdmann. The Cambridge introduction offered a lot more; it was almost a brief summary of not only these 2 essays but also of some of Schopenhauer's important ideas. Afterwards, I liked the wording better of the Oxford version, where Cambridge felt a bit "popular" or non-technical and had more distracting footnotes. The German language being closely linked to my native Dutch, I am even more determined to find his other works in Dutch (Vorstellung / Gewissen)

In some introductory lecture, I heard the idea that philosophy is not a science, since different thinkers do not work on the same questions, do not use the same tools/vocabulary and so on. It is more of a free for all game, as long as you are inherently consistent and outwardly with some ground rules such as logic. In this book, Schopenhaur takes a very thorough approach, explaining a lot of concepts and setting the framework every moral theory should adhere to: the what and the why of moral worth. What means good/bad/right/wrong/duty? All moral theories should have an answer. Such general framework helps me to compare authors and become more critical myself. So I really liked it.

For my own future reference I mention them here; duty has only agreed-upon basis and is an action of which the ommision would mean to injure another, i.e., that is, a wrong: the deed of injury, where a right is only an action one can do without injuring another, justice only shows what is not unjust, so no one suffers wrong, morals avoid to do wrong and show what to do (p.324).

A major insight for me was that ethics may not at all be what "ought" to be. Schopenhauer explicitly aims at description rather than prescription. Morals don't have any value from authority, who proclaims "ought"? one philsopher? Kant was the one that put such emphasis on the rational with a maxim that forced "a duty" on to us to counter our self-interest. Such a never agreed upon duty stems from theology. Moreover; such a proclaimed ought by a commanding voice transforms all virtue in self-intefest: if you believe a duty, you believe that someone ELSE will finally judge you in the end. So the source of your morals is not in you (p.221). Schopenhauer shows how this is also a remnant from the rational psychology or dualism championed by Descartes where matter and the empirical world would only amount to a lower cognitive faculty opposed to the soul. Yet, such refusal of reality results in abstract or "higher" ethics that just doesn't add up. "This person is virtuous but knows no compassion. The contradiction is palpable" (p.343) He continues empirically, to try and show that all moral theories try to find a basis for the same view "Harm no one, try to help as much as you can". Ethics are practical by definition, they should reduce human behavior to its ultimate ground (p.298), how should you find and match it, starting from mere concepts? For Schopenhauer, a moral principle must first be proven to be "real", that is a sufficient ground for human action, whereas Kant his law is not: people do not act out of mere respect for a rule, it must win the battle over our Will.

A second insight, was the fact that an individual life may not contain anything of true value, because it is not the proper point of view to adopt in this world-solving problem. In a historical overview, he also explains that all the classic philsophers, except Plato, proposed "eudaimonic" morals: means to the end of hapinness (p.214). I felt that from the modern philosophers (Hobbes, Hume, Kant) onwards, they started to look more for truth, an action should not lead to hapinness anymore but it should not be "mistaken" with the lay-out of the real world, the ideal behind the real.

From the idea of causal determinism flows the fact that we discover our essence, our character "through" our deeds. "For in them nothing actually new attains existence: rather, through that which we do, we simply experience what we are." (p.154, Oxford edition). With a true free will, we would have no essence, we would be a shape-shifting existence creating something out of nothing, we would not be the doer of our deeds. Determinism is neither in the external objects (for then every human would react in the same way) "nor does the difference of behaviour depend solely on the interpretation of the objects (the cognition), for that would reduce all difference to a correctness of judgements and morals would be changed into logic" (p.148)

I really liked how he built towards the concept of our Will by going from objects (causes) to plants (stimuli) to animals (with cognition and thus motives). In this light, motivation is not a magical source, but the inevitable interplay between the external objects and our will ("causality through cognition"). When Hume talked about "lively ideas", Schopenhauer speaks of "testing a motive against our will" and the more motives our self-awareness identifies, or our thoughts offer to our Will, the more we can adapt our means to our ends. But the ends are linked to our unchangeable and innate character, our Will. "To judge the moral worth of an action, we seek the motive for it, but then our praise concerns the character that allows itself to be determined by such a motive" (p.144, see How to Think Like a Monk, satisfaction is linked to the intention of our motivation for a certain goal: which motive drove us). If our decision comes about without a motive that has passed through concepts, but rather stems from the intuitive presence, we call it irrational. "Yet the same action can be praised as rational, if it is carried out independent of the intuitive presence." (p.126) Our cognition and reflecting on different motives gives us our intention and deliberateness, but not necessarily our freedom. We simply intend what we would have done anyway. The conflict between our thoughts/words and actions is therefore not a real one: we only test ideas against our Will, but in the end, only our actions reveal our true Will, our character.

Schopenhauer links his ethics with his metaphysics and claims only moral value for an action that brings us closer to our denial of Will, for anything that dissolves our individuation, eliminated our personality and brings us closer to the one essence that is behind the empirical world. "For both [good & bad character] there is a broad chasm, a vast distinction between the I, which is limited to its own person, and the Not-I, which encompasses the rest of the world: "the world may perish, if only I be safe" is their maxism(...)in contrast the good character lives in an external world homogeneous with his essence: others are not Not-I but "I once more" (p.373+380)

The main advantage this has over any prescriptive universal law, is that it feels right. We do feel "doer of our deeds" and we feel that someone can be at the same time irrational and noble or rational and cruel.

Another profound interpretation of original sin would be that Adam & Eve only became empirical, individuated in time and space, as from that moment on. Before, they were made from the same oneness (the rib of Men). And so we feel "guilty" of this move into the empirical world, we feel that we fell from that oneness into a lower (empirical) sphere and we are responsible for that. Our consciousness accuses our essence (p.281)

Principles might serve as "the container in which the disposition that has risen out of the source of all morality, which does not flow at every moment, is stored." But he states clearly "moral excellence [behaviour] stands higher than all theoretical wisdom, which is merely patchwork and arrives on the slow path as the former reaches in one stride."

He adopt the intelligible character of Kant, from the noumenal sphere of reality, which is for Kant unknowable, but Schopenhauer says that our continuous striving, our Will is how we experience internally that sphere.

On some points, I disagreed with Schopenhauer. He namely focuses on our desire and says it stems from a painful lack or absence, but I found the existentialist solution more elegant, to say that our actions create and satisfy that lack at the same time. If you look at it this way, there is a choice whether to focus on the lack or on the possible action. Schopenhauer wants to be accurate and limits himself to the perceived lack, and thus he answers with a simple no to one of Kant's questions: "what may I hope?" I wonder if there are objects that cannot claim our compassion, nor our loving kindness? What if we are no longer talking about direct interaction but through complex regulations? I did also find the mechanism behind "compassion" to be a little too easy, almost an etymological definition of "Mitleid" more than any explanation, this is where his theory becomes mystical.

When he tried to tackle Kantian ethics, he mentions that the concepts of interest and motive are convertible, since when our Will is moved, he presupposes there is a motive/interest that moves it. But some trauma can very well be the motive, and this is not an interest?

I also found him a bit hard on Kant when it comes to the latters concepts of "end in themselves" & "absolute worth". I can understand that an end normally needs a Will first and that worth is always individually determined compared to other things on a same unit. Nevertheless, if all humans share this idea of worth and put it above all the rest, the word absolute might be granted. The end in themselves is also more a figure of speech, a principle for the moral container, as he himself called it.

I wondered if curiosity and positivity (my personal favorite virtues) could be traced back to compassion and I think so: to be curious helps us join the Not-I and positivity helps us to show kindness)

There is no free will in the empirical world, because everything flows from necessity, our cognition will always recognize cause and effect. Nothing occurs without a sufficient ground. But the effect of a motive depends on someone's character (see what sunlights does different things to water, fruit, our skin). This unchanging character he calls our Will. It is the gravity of our consciousness: how at a given time, a given external object result in a given action. We can ponder different actions, propose them to our Will, this is our thinking faculty, but we are mistaken that we "could also raise it to an act of Will, leading to the proposed action" (p.135) we cannot make the idea more livelier by wishing it.

Cognition allows for the cause and effect to be further away in space and time. Objects need to work on each other and even plants need the cause to "touch" them with light/wind/whatever means. Schopenhauer calls an "intuitive motive" one that is in close proximity in space and time and thus easily recognized (related to all objects&plants and some basic animal species). "Abstract motives" are thoughts such as described hereabove, nevertheless they still obey just the same laws of causal determinism and always based on an impression from the outside. So, relatively we are "free of the present, intuitive moment".

Unfortunately, we do not control our Will, that is why we sometimes prefer not to know, not to submit certain inputs in the machinery of our Will.

Soldiers that agree to give their lives for certain beliefs (that made them sign up) are no longer morally free, but they might win sense/meaning and even happiness, since meaning is nothing more than adherence to a long contraint (Nietzsche). He even says that dying for the fatherland has moral worth, since soldiers would enlarge themselves to include their countrymen. However, I wonder how many soldiers really are concerned with their neighbour’s and thus have this small chasm between the I and the not-I, or rather how many do it more out of their interest and the Not-I of the other side.

As every great book, it gave me a lot more to read: Locke on matter that can think, Hobbes to show our egotistical first occupancy, Montaignes chapitre XI, Plato and Socrates, Rousseau Émile (book 4: "present the young man objects on which the expansive force of his heart may take effect, which extend it to other creatures, which take him outside himself; should we not carefully remove everything that narrows concentrates ans strengthens the power of the human self?") . I want to verify the definition of "sympathy" that was more central for Hume, as more than once I was reminded of his "lively ideas" (see p.333 "depending partly on how lively and deeply felt is this...") and how the close proximity of our "self" makes all egoistic motives more lively.

Schopenhauer imagines a stretch of water lying in a pond and thinking to itself that it could rise up in a jet, rush down in a waterfall, and so on, but that it is freely resting where it is. It would be no different if a man were to think that he could be doing all sorts of daring things X, Y, and Z. "but I'm going home. I'm going home with just as much free will to my life." (p. xxv)

[Yash Arya]

Read the Blinkist summary. Will not read the book.

Key Takeaways
Schopenhauer argues that emotions (compassion), not rational thinking, forms the true basis of morality.

Schopenhauer identified three fundamental forces that drive human behavior.
1. Self-interest: Acting to help yourself
2. Compassion: Acting to help others (even to the point of ignoring your self-interest)
3. Malice: Acting to harm others

Schopenhauer says through introspection and deliberation we can hone in our compassion, look beyond our immediate self-interest, and not act on our feelings of malice. He recognizes that self-interest and compassion may sometimes be aligned, but if they're not, choose compassion over self-interest.

My review
At face value this may seem reasonable. I would argue that it isn't (entirely) reasonable, but if the basis of morality is emotions, then why should you care if it sounds reasonable or not? Why not just take the bull by the horn and be irrational?

These are, in effect, simply justifications for what Ayn Rand refers to as Altruism (a term coined by philosopher August Comte - literally meaning "other-ism.") Since no reason could possibly be given for such views, proponents of altruism must necessarily ask you to give up reason and simply go by your feelings.

Schopenhauer (and generations of philosophers, psychologists, and laypersons indirectly influenced by him - among other key figures) takes it for granted that feeling compassionate while doing something for others is enough to show that the action is moral. This is fantastic! How do you know, without the use of reason, whether your actions in fact even help others?

Ask yourself the following.

1) Without reason, can you distinguish between intention and impact?
A bleeding heart liberal sees people working hard at a minimum wage job. Driven by compassion, he lobbies to increase the legal minimum wage. Patting himself on the back for achieving his goal, he moves on to the next social cause to help himself feel good. But did he, in fact, by his own standard do good, or simply feel good?

If you understand economics (which requires the use of reason), you know that he didn't. While he moved on with his life, little did he know how many minimum wage workers he intended to help lost their jobs because it was simply became too expensive to hire them for the same job. Little does he think about the businesses closed, jobs outsourced, or automated.

2) Is it helpful to pour into a broken cup?
As the saying goes, "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

Imagine a friend or a stranger comes to you and asks for help. He has a gambling/drinking problem, and he's broke because of it. In your compassion, you give him some money. He spends it on gambling/drinking once again and comes back to you asking for more. If you, feeling sad for that person, bail him out again, are you helping him?

Or are you simply enabling him to continue being self-sabotaging? Are you sure you don't just want him to remain dependent on you, so that you feel important and wanted? And aren't you hurting yourself in this process, by spending your money - which is earned with your time, your labor, your life - on this instead of other better aims? But, perhaps you think your self-interest doesn't take priority over helping others. That brings me to the next question.

3) Can you pour from an empty cup?
Now that you've enabled someone else to become dependent on you, what happens to them once you've ruined your own life by ignoring your own genuine and rational self-interest? Recall the safety instructions you hear on a flight: Wear your own oxygen mask before helping others. Because if you can't help yourself, what makes you think you can continue helping others?

"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement."
- Ayn Rand

4) But is helping others the primary justification for your life?
It's perfectly fine, and recommended, to get into "win-win" relationships in life, where you mutually help each other move towards your goal. Not every act of helping others is an act of sacrifice. It is only an act of sacrifice when you give up a higher value in pursuit of a lower value. But is helping others the highest value, the primary justification of your life, even if you sacrifice yourself in the process? But if YOUR life doesn't matter, then why do other lives matter? If other lives matter, why is it only YOUR life that doesn't? If it's good for others to get and keep the unearned, why is it bad for you to keep that which you've earned?

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
- Ayn Rand

Reject altruism. Not only does that make you hate others who you believe you're morally obligated to serve, it is the path to self-hate and nihilism. It is the morality of death and destruction. What, then, is the proper mode for healthy relationships between rational people? Trade, in matter and in spirit.

The symbol of all relationships among [rational] men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.
- Ayn Rand

There's nothing wrong in asking for help when you need it. But reject the mindset that you're entitled to being helped, or obligated to help others who feel entitled to your life, your energy, your time, your money. A trader will find plenty of other traders to help him during unexpected hard times, and he will on average have fewer such hard times. A looter / moocher will create hard times for himself and others.

[Jung · Rating 5 out of 5]

Arthur Schopenhauer’s "The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics" delves into two profound questions of moral philosophy: whether humans have free will and what underpins moral behavior. His revolutionary perspective challenges conventional ideas, prioritizing compassion over reason as the foundation of ethics. In these two prize-winning essays, he argues that moral behavior is deeply rooted in our capacity to connect with and empathize with others. Schopenhauer’s ideas offer insights into human nature, character, and morality that remain relevant today, helping us navigate personal growth and societal challenges.

Schopenhauer lived in a period of upheaval, observing the industrialization of Europe and its impact on traditional life. This transformation inspired him to question the dominant philosophies of the time, especially Immanuel Kant’s theory that morality arises from rational principles and universal rules. Instead of relying on abstract reasoning, Schopenhauer studied human behavior as it naturally unfolds, focusing on real-life experiences rather than hypothetical ideals. He proposed that compassion, rather than rationality, is the true source of morality, a perspective that set him apart from the prevailing philosophical norms.

In his exploration of free will, Schopenhauer challenged the traditional notion of absolute freedom in human decision-making. He argued that our actions are determined by two primary factors: our individual character and the motives present in any given situation. For example, the seemingly simple act of choosing breakfast is influenced by personal tastes, habits, and external circumstances, all shaped by past experiences and innate tendencies. Actions, he asserted, reveal the true nature of our character rather than being entirely free choices. Responsibility, then, lies in the expression of one’s character through actions.

This perspective on free will shifts the focus from making individual choices to cultivating one’s character over time. By understanding the patterns of one’s motivations and reactions, individuals can consciously shape their moral character. Schopenhauer believed that personal growth and moral development arise not from rigid adherence to rules but from self-awareness and the practice of compassion. This approach offers a liberating view of morality, emphasizing the importance of understanding oneself and acting authentically.

Schopenhauer’s concept of compassion as the foundation of ethics is particularly striking. He observed that acts of kindness and justice often stem from an innate ability to empathize with others’ experiences. When we recognize someone else’s suffering as if it were our own, we are moved to act compassionately. This connection transcends rational calculation and highlights the emotional core of moral behavior. Unlike traditional philosophies that viewed emotions as obstacles to moral reasoning, Schopenhauer argued that compassion is the truest guide to ethical action.

His analysis identified three fundamental motivations that drive human behavior: self-interest, malice, and compassion. Self-interest focuses on personal needs and goals, while malice derives from a desire to harm others, even if subtly. Compassion, however, stands apart as the purest moral force, inspiring actions that prioritize others’ well-being without regard for personal gain. By understanding these motivations, individuals can better recognize the forces influencing their decisions and strive to nurture compassion as a guiding principle.

Schopenhauer also emphasized the role of character in moral development. He likened the growth of moral behavior to the acquisition of a skill, where repeated practice and experience gradually transform one’s natural responses. Compassion becomes second nature as individuals consistently recognize and respond to others’ needs. This developmental process underscores the importance of real-world experiences in shaping moral character. Rather than relying on external rules or abstract principles, Schopenhauer believed that true moral growth emerges from engaging with life and cultivating empathy.

Significantly, Schopenhauer’s ideas extend beyond individual morality to societal implications. He envisioned communities where compassion is the norm, fostering a collective ethos of kindness and understanding. This vision remains relevant in addressing modern challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and global conflicts. By expanding our capacity for compassion, we can create a more just and empathetic world.

Schopenhauer’s legacy has had a lasting impact on philosophy, psychology, and ethics. His emphasis on compassion anticipated modern research on empathy and moral behavior, which has demonstrated the biological basis of our capacity to connect with others. Neuroscientific findings, for instance, reveal that witnessing another person’s pain activates the same areas of the brain as experiencing pain oneself, affirming Schopenhauer’s belief in the intrinsic connection between individuals.

Moreover, his nuanced view of free will and moral responsibility resonates with contemporary debates about the influence of genetics, environment, and culture on behavior. While we may not have complete control over our actions, understanding the factors that shape our character empowers us to make meaningful changes. This insight encourages a shift from rigid moral judgments to a more compassionate and nuanced understanding of human behavior.

Schopenhauer’s work challenges us to rethink the foundations of ethics, prioritizing the cultivation of compassion over strict adherence to rules or logical principles. His ideas remain relevant in a world where moral choices are increasingly complex and interconnected. By embracing his philosophy, we can better understand ourselves, foster genuine connections with others, and contribute to a more compassionate society.

In essence, "The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics" offers a timeless exploration of morality rooted in human experience and empathy. Schopenhauer’s insights into character, motivation, and moral growth continue to inspire personal reflection and societal change. His emphasis on compassion as the foundation of ethics serves as a powerful reminder that true moral behavior arises from the heart, not just the mind. Through conscious self-awareness and a commitment to caring for others, we can build a world that embodies Schopenhauer’s vision of kindness and understanding.

[Clemens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Schopenhauer setzt sich in der ersten Abhandlung mit der Freiheit des menschlichen Willens auseinander, wobei zuvor natürlich nicht vergisst noch ein paar Seiten lang ausfallend über seine philosophierenden Zeitgenossen zu werden. Bei seiner Auseinandersetzung mit der Willensfreiheit kommt er relativ schnell zu der Einsicht, dass es Diese nicht geben kann. Ebenso wie der Stein erhitzt wird durch die Sonnenstrahlen, handelt der Mensch durch ein Motiv. Eine Freiheit des Willens könnte nur durch die Negation der Notwendigkeit so zu Wollen bestehen, also dass es bei einem Motiv unterschiedliche Möglichkeiten zu wollen gäbe. Dies sei nicht gegeben. Der menschliche Wille stellt keine Ausnahme beim Gesetz der Kausalität dar. Das Missverständnis Derer, die von einer liberum arbitrium indifferentiae ausgehen, liegt darin, dass sie denken sie können ja entweder so oder so wollen. Bei diesem Zeitpunkt ist jedoch der Wille schon als Prämisse angenommen. Es ginge um das Verhältnis von Motiv und Wille und dieses Aufeinanderfolgen folgt ebenso dem Satz vom Grunde wie das Runterfallen eines Stiftes vom Tisch. Welchen Willen das Motiv jedoch hervorruft ist wiederum von Charakter eines Menschen abhängig, von welchem Schopenhauer ein relativ starres Bild hat. Dieser ist angeboren und nicht wandelbar, wenn er auch durch äußere Umwelteinflüsse geleitet werden könne. Ansonsten schreibt Schopenhauer auch zwischenzeitlich über das Buridan’sche Eselproblem, welches auch auf den Menschen anzuwenden sei. Eine These die aus heutiger Sicht etwas lächerlich erscheint.

Die zweite Abhandlung gibt eine Einführung in Schopenhauers Mitleidsethik. Alle Handlungen eines Menschen lassen sich auf drei unterschiedliche Motive zurückführen: a) Egoismus, b) Bosheit, c) Mitleid. Eine moralische Handlung könne nur eine solche sein, die aus Mitleid vollzogen wird und sich durch Abwesenheit von jeglichem Egoismus kennzeichnet. Schopenhauer zeigt sich hier besonders bzgl. Tierethik für seine Zeit als relativ fortgeschritten. Mit ihnen müsse man genauso Mitleid haben wie mit dem Menschen. Gleichzeitig wäre es jedoch in Ordnung sie zu essen, da Leiden nur ab einem bestimmten Ausmaß an Vernunft möglich ist, das das Tier nicht besitzt. Der Mensch würde insofern durch einen Verzicht auf Fleisch mehr leiden als ein Tier, was eigentlich im kompletten Widerspruch steht mit der Aussage, dass man Mitleid mit Tieren haben müsse. Im Großen und Ganzen halte ich Schopenhauers Mitleidsethik für nicht ganz überzeugend. Er empfindet Handlungen als unmoralisch und egoistisch, wenn sie aufgrund der Orientierung an einem höheren Regelsystem geschehen bspw. einer Vorstellung von christlichen Werten bei Gläubigen. Genauso müssten auch Handlungen unmoralisch/egoistisch sein, die bspw. lediglich aufgrund schlechten Gewissens vollzogen werden, das bspw. durch eine Vorstellung von richtig und falsch ausgelöst wird. Enthält das Motiv hier auch nur die Spur eines Wunsches eigenes schlechtes Gewissen zu beseitigen, ist die Handlung ja zumindest teilweise auf eigenes Wohlbefinden ausgerichtet und somit nicht frei von Egoismus. Mir ist nicht ganz klar, warum Mitleid hier eine solche Sonderrolle spielt. Am Ende des Tages, auch wenn Schopenhauer es so formuliert, als würden wir durch die andere Person leiden, ist es ja auch ein Gefühl, dass eben mir innewohnt und das ich wohlmöglich eben bei mir beseitigen möchte. Auch ansonsten halte ich die Aussage, dass eine moralische Handlung frei von Egoismus sein muss für etwas realitätsfern. Sein Menschenbild, das maßgeblich von Hobbes beeinflusst ist, lässt gute Handlungen unter Menschen komplett außen vor, obwohl Diese gar nicht unbedingt seiner These, dass Egoismus i.d.R. das Hauptmotiv ist, gar nicht widersprechen muss. Man denke an das egoistische Gen oder altruistisches Strafen in der Biologie. Ich denke, dass der einzige progressive Aspekt seiner Ethik vermutlich das nicht vollständige Ignorieren von Tieren als Lebewesen ist.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Schopenhauer is, above all else, a very *readable* philosopher - even though he's going about the project of 19th c. German Idealism, he's a good enough writer (even in translation!) that it's actually possible to get some insight from him. Compare to his favorite punching bags of the German academy, like Hegel!

It's also interesting because his ideas in these two essays sure do seem vindicated by the forward march of time. Defenders of "libertarian" free will (i.e. The ability to have done otherwise, with no change in initial conditions) have had to construct ever more abstruse machinery to kind of, sort of, find it in reality, if you squint. And the further diffusion of Eastern philosophy into the West might make his finding a first principle of ethics in compassion - giving rise to the motives of justice and loving-kindness - a bit more familiar.

The one big misfortune in his writings is his misogyny, which stands out all the uglier because he is remarkably fair minded about non-Europeans, and quite progressive for his time and place with respect to the treatment of non-human animals. The other misfortune is his repeated blaming of "Judaism" for certain elements in European Christendom, although it's not clear whether he means the Jewish people if his own day, or just the Abrahamic tradition that started with ancient Judaism before Christianity ever arose. (He also has some pretty wacky speculation about a supposed East Asian [i.e. Non-Jewish!] origin of Christian doctrines, which I would like to read more about but which I expect has been fairly comprehensively destroyed by later historiography.)

Four stars.

[Alex Brajkovic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Too bad Schopenhauer did not include "On the freedom of the will" in his "The World as Will and Representation". Brilliant introduction to his practical philosophy, especially the part about the difference between human and animal motives.

Freedom of the will is not thinkable, in other words it is nonsense.
Why? - Because we know through our intellect, and the main job of the intellect is to always ask "Why?".
And once you ask "Why?" with the freedom of the will is finished. You did something because you _____ (fill the most powerful motive).

Freedom of the will may exists but our intellect just can not comprehend that. It's the limited tool.

[andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

la cosa che mi dispiace di Schopenhauer è che fino all'ultimo è stato filosofo, anche laddove, chiaramente, era spinto dalle sue stesse conclusioni ad abbracciare una visione del mondo quanto più brahmanica possibile per un figlio dell'Occidente. invero, Schopenhauer si esaurisce nell'essere un altro figlio dell'Occidente, solo con qualche tinta esotica in più - è a suo modo un merito, certo, ma questo è quanto. troppo ancorato al kantiano, non ha mai osato il tuffo nel mistico, nonostante l'abbia indicato; a malapena ha tastato l'acqua, suggerendo Volontà, che subito già la mano si ritraeva dietro alle convenzioni linguistiche della filosofia da lui stesso criticata.

[Karol Rudziński · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ciekawe spojrzenie na wolę człowieka i być może najbardziej bliskie "prawdzie" z którymi dotychczas się spotkałem. Schopenhauer twierdzi, że każde działanie człowieka wynika z ciągu przyczynowo skutkowego. Człowiek według niego nie ma wolnej woli i działa zawsze z konieczności. Schopenhauer w swojej pracy powołuje się także na innych filozofów, pisarzy czy nawet do ówczesnej wiedzy chemicznej/fizycznej aby udowodnić swoją tezę. Na pewno warto poświęcić trochę czasu tej pozycji pomimo, że niektóre fragmenty są dosyć zawiłe.

[Mateusz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ciekawa książka, zupełnie nie spodziewałem się, że Schopenhauer ma w sobie tyle z kantysty. Bardzo ciekawe i metodycznie poprawnie przeprowadzone rozważania. Zdecydowanie więcej się tutaj objawia niż tylko znany z memów pesymizm. Bardzo ciekawe rozważania dot. woluntaryzmu.
Książka pełna erudycji, ale uważam, że wiele tez dot. natury ludzkiej jest błędnych i wątpliwie uzasadnionych. Na pewno przeczytam jeszcze raz jak będę lepiej orientował się w filozofii najbardziej sławnego pesymisty z Gdańska

[Alistair Antonopoulos · Rating 2 out of 5]

Schopenhauer is well known as a pessimist, so I cant really criticise him for that, as its not exactly a secret. That said, his entire thesis in this work seems to be humans are bad because we eat animals, which are living things, therefore, morality is an illusion, and so is free will because we cant just starve ourselves to death. The work is not badly written, it's just I fundamentally disagree with his reasoning and conclusions. It's nevertheless still worth reading, at least to get an understanding of his thinking without having to plough throw the world as will and representation.

[bimri · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are so many quotable instances by Schopenhauer on this book. I hated the first half of it cause the author was on a roll dismantling Kantian morality basics; hence often incanting his name. Nonetheless he makes up for it where he lays the new simple foundation, which adheres to all mortals... making ethics the simplest philosophical field. It could all be summed on one word - compassion.


“Compassion is the basis of morality.”

[cadfael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Removes the presupposed basis of ethics from the (high minded) pretense of reason and places it within one’s character, or the hidden and inner primacy of self (which produces and is only known via one’s own willing — or will — in retrospect). Ethics therefore — as he writes — stems from one’s essence; from who one is. I enjoyed this throughly. [also, I quoted nothing of Schopenhauer in his own words, above.]

[Michael Baranowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's no 'The World as Will and Representation' but what is? Schopenhauer super-fans (like me), will either have read this or have it on their 'to read' list. Everyone else is probably better off checking out the Penguin Classics version of his Essays and Aphorisms.

[Jesus · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a lover of philosophy. Schopenhauer does it like no other. A pessimist at heart he understands the daily grind and how subjective we are to change our mind if it pleases the masses. A must have if you want to learn about realistic philosophy.

[David Adhira · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very complex work of philosophy and in some ways spirituality. Great read, though difficult to keep up with, without a thorough knowledge of Kant's work. Definitely a prerequisite to this book!!! Would also suggest brushing up on Descartes.

[Chris McDonald · Rating 3 out of 5]

profound and disagreeable.

[General Common · Rating 4 out of 5]

Too dumb for this, definitely would read again

[Harrison G · Rating 4 out of 5]

My introduction to Schopenhauer's philosophy was a dense and humorous one. It was this collection of two essays, in fact. I found his writing gripping but difficult, and very satisfying. 4/5 stars.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

While it presents discussion with great detail and understanding, it is by no means easy read or listen. Definitely worth a second pass to fully comprehend the text.

[Arash Oshaei · Rating 4 out of 5]

مرکز

[Paolo De Ruggiero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ottima edizione di questi due classici, con la relativa introduzione. La prova provata che la filosofia di Schopenhauer è veramente la Tebe dalle cento porte!

[Ilona]

14.11.2023 -> 76 %

[Zarii · Rating 4 out of 5]

Doceniam myśli i światopogląd ale raczej nieprędko sięgnę po coś filozoficznego xd