A good life worth living in my opinion requires serving and satisfying the needs of others, as well as my own. We are expected to give selflessly to our colleagues, friends, neighbors and family for a good moral cause because ultimately it serves a purpose. What would we gain by simply relying on our own actions alone, and how would this selfishness benefit us overall in society? This is where Kant and Nietzsche disagree over the definition of what is considered a good life, what is considered moral, and who gets to decide about it. I will start with Kant, since he was the first to develop his theory of morality. Kant published Foundations for 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 have a moral duty to oblige and support as good beings. Kant believed that our moral actions were the result of reasoning and that one's moral worth depended on one's motivations, not on the purpose or consequences resulting from one's actions. As rational beings, we are expected to act and behave accordingly for the moral good, but with practical reason. This then results in universal morality according to Kant. All this was defined according to Kant's categorical imperative. These imperatives are things that Kant “ought” to do. Kant believed that the fulfillment of one's duty is not measurable in terms of final means, but "is good only through its will." This meant that it is only good if it is good in itself. He believes that under the categorical imperative one must act according to the maxim only if it is will according to universal law. And these maxims must be free of contradictions and purposeful to be considered moral. Kant believed that we as hum...... middle of paper...... feel beneath you to elevate ourselves. If one was born into the noble a virtuous and good life was sanctioned, the ignoble were condemned from the beginning 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 choices socially. He felt that all individuals should be free to form their own moral compass system. He was clearly against religion and the bastard mentality of fear to control one's choices and dictate what was deemed moral. He was calling for radical change, that we could rebuild how 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 nearly century-old system that worked theoretically and realistically..