In 1882, world renowned German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously stated "God is dead, and we have killed him." By this, Nietzsche meant the modern world lacks wholly virtuous subjects, as those godly and omnipotent entities of the past. In such a world, humans have formed a field of philosophy, that of virtue ethics, where the qualities of the modern virtuous subject are hotly debated, with the end goal of erecting a 'godly' hero in the modern age. Yet, inside virtue ethics there remains a lack of debate comparing Nietzschean ethics in comparison to other schools of thought. Thus, this paper will be analyzing Nietzsche's philosophy in conflict with two other popular virtue ethical schools of thought, namely Stoic philosophy of the Western, Graeco-Roman tradition and Buddhist philosophy of the Eastern philosophical tradition. From this, it will argue that Nietzschean ethics comprise the most accurate and desirable theory of virtue ethics in contrast to Stoicism and Buddhism.

Examining Nietzschean ethics itself, much of his philosophy stems from the idea that communication is essentially impossible, a position known as perspectivism. Leslie Thiele writes two ways Nietzsche thought communication fails. First, communicating one's thoughts comes at the cost of simplifying and falsifying them, as words never adequately portray experiences. Second, the recipient intakes communication in reference to their own unique experiences such that the experience is re-contextualized by the recipient (Thiele, 1990). Yet communication still fills two vital purposes. The first is to advance one's own thoughts, since even though one could never understand the communicator the attempt would advance the subject’s thought. The second is to create art since, for Nietzsche, art and philosophy were analogous as one ascends themselves when crafting philosophy through self expression, which holds intrinsic value. It is from perspectivism that Nietzsche critiques morality and society as each "individual is a law unto [themself], unpredictable and unmanageable. Society, then, cannot be composed of individuals, it requires members... The purpose of establishing society… was to prevent people from becoming individuals" (Thiele, 1990).

Nietzsche’s philosophical system is radical, and thus, many alternate systems are opposed to it. The first of these is Stoicism, which counters Nietzsche due to its interdependent theories of teleology and passivity. James Mollison describes Stoicism’s relationship with teleology, writing “Stoics understood nature as ordered by a teleological principle of divine rationality… They expressed this teleological principle in a ubiquitous causal order and called it ‘fate’... they maintained that causal relations occur only among bodies… The Stoic commitment to eternal divine rationality in a framework of causal determinism entails the recurrence of exactly this world and no other” (Mollison, 2021). Since a teleological world is destined to be molded by divine rationality and individuals had no power to change “fate’s” course, all aspects of the external environment have already been predetermined and will continue to resist change, never deviating and eternally resurging into a state of equilibrium. Stoics believed teleology justified approaching the world through passivity, or controlling one's reactions to situations instead of changing the external environment that caused the situation itself. Niel Durrant writes that under Stoic teleology “it turns out there are very few things you can control. In fact, Stoicism suggests the only thing really under your control is your response to the world, rather than anything in the world itself… Putting effort into anything else is considered a waste of time” (Durrant, 2023). When weighing the logic between the reactionary world of Stoic passivity, and the proactive world of Nietzschean passion, it becomes clear that Nietzsche’s philosophical system debunks Stoicism’s core tenets of passivity and teleology. Durrant attacks passivity by writing how, in contrast to Stoicism, “[Nietzschean philosophy] seems to me a much better way to… make the most of your life… No one would ever achieve anything incredible, or step beyond their own limitations and boundaries, if they simply accepted that the only thing they could ‘really’ control was themselves. Even if you’re (almost) guaranteed to fail, there is merit in extending yourself” (Durrant, 2023). This logic seems sound, no agent would pursue to end catastrophes such as climate change or racial inequality if they simply accepted these are necessary results of a, somewhat, deterministic world to be reacted to instead of proactively addressed.

The next philosophical counter to Nietzsche is Buddhism, whose philosophical thesis is that suffering is an evil which must be overcome through detachment from one's own thoughts. Due to the Buddhist belief that suffering is the greatest evil, their version of the virtuous subject, the bodhisattva, would strive to relieve that suffering. Leesa Davis writes about this concept, "The bodhisattva represents the key orientations of the Mahāyāna [Buddhist] tradition... the liberation of all sentient beings. The bodhisattva is a being that has achieved enlightenment who then forgoes or postpones [their] own enlightenment to remain in this world and help relieve the suffering of others" (Davis, 2013). It is the end goal of this bodhisattva to liberate all beings from suffering, but Nietzsche would have seen this goal as a great setback, as the bodhisattva would rob individuals of resilience and the desire for improvement. To him, suffering is inseparable from self-improvement, as “Suffering elevates man. It raises [them] above [themself]. Better said, it is the catalyst that allows man to overcome [their] lower nature, [their] desire for comfort and a painless life… By heroic standards everything that contributes to strength is good. And strength is developed only through struggle. A world without struggle and its attendant suffering, therefore, is to be deprecated” (Thiele, 1990). This “liberated” society, in Nietzsche's view, would be bankrupt of the greatness of mankind, since any virtuous subject must necessarily suffer in the constant destruction and rearticulation of themselves. When pitted against each other, Thiele’s analysis of Nietzsche seems to profoundly disprove the goal of the bodhisattva.

For Nietzsche, suffering is a necessary, yet temporary, result of improving, since to create a new and improved self one must molt out of the flaws and constraints of their old self. This step of self improvement naturally involves suffering, as one must painfully reject the comfort of the old and stagnant. The greatest artists and leaders embrace suffering in improving their craft. Van Gogh channeled his suffering into his work to paint beautiful landscapes and Hercules’ brutal trials were the impetus for his ascension to godhood itself. Under Nietzschean theory, Buddhism unanimously fails to provide a method to improve oneself, the bodhisattva’s rejection of suffering necessitates clinging onto a stagnant self, inhibiting human improvement entirely.

The second disagreement of Buddhism and Nietzsche is if the virtuous subject should remain attached to their thoughts. Buddhism relies on an ethic of equanimity, which Davis describes to “[reinforce] the pivotal virtue of non-attachment. In the cultivation of equanimity attachments to dichotomous polarized ways of thinking… that can strengthen the ‘I’ attachment are undermined. The cultivation of equanimity also further emphasizes the equality of all beings by not fostering preferences for self over others.” Davis writes that Buddhists must achieve equanimity through understanding anātman, or that there is no-self, and that one must let go of attachments to their thoughts and identity to flourish. For Buddhists, in this state of anātman, one becomes more observant as they are depersonalized observers of their thoughts, instead of victims to their whims (Davis, 2013). Nietzsche would find this Buddhist distinction appalling and would contend that feelings are necessary for the creation of intellectual progress: "Knowledge, Nietzsche insisted, was not a product of depersonalized observation and thought, but of the stimulation of the sense and passions, of their multiplication and agglomeration. Even if one were capable of suspending passion, the result would not be more objectivity, but, to use Nietzsche's words, a castrated intellect" (Thiele, 1990). Impassioned thought disproves non-attachment as feelings improve, or are at least a necessary byproduct of, intellectual thought. Thiele is correct that the best ideas and thoughts are the result of passion, as one must necessarily be enthralled in their work on an emotional level to push it to new bounds, and from the process of removing this passion this improvement is halted. Equanimity would cut off a large reservoir of thought, since many thoughts cannot be separated from the feelings they are attached to.

Despite this paper's defense of Nietzsche, to accept his thesis and believe Nietzsche to be unanimously correct would ironically contradict his theory. The best approach to reading Nietzsche is, paradoxically, to criticize Nietzsche by aligning against his theories, poking holes in his logic, and developing alternate philosophical systems. Ceding oneself to Nietzsche would fall back into the herd mentality as one must give up their own individualism to accept another's theory that, according to perspectivism, they cannot properly comprehend. The best way to approach this paradox is to approach Nietzsche critically. Use this paper as a reason to find counters to Nietzsche's position, use it as a method to further personal thought, or just as a piece of art to appreciate for the fact that it was made, and it is here.