Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Darwin are two influential thinkers who made compelling arguments about morality. The two philosophers rejected traditional Christian teachings, but their positions on morality differed greatly. However, the two divergent opinions require deeper examination and analysis due to the complex yet interesting nature of their arguments. Darwin offers a provocative analysis of the evolution of human morality and concludes that morality (especially empathy and sympathy), which derives from experiences, was fundamental to human development and survival. On the other hand, Nietzsche disagrees and literally deconstructs the accepted understanding of morality (slave morality) and deems it irrelevant. It proposes the idea of ​​a noble morality, which means doing what you want, compared to slave morality, which means saying no to yourself and practicing selfless love. Nietzsche finds this problematic because it makes humans weaker and prevents creativity from thriving. Although both Darwin and Nietzsche raised crucial points about morality, their arguments have numerous flaws. Darwin's view that morality comes from evolution is problematic because it means that one can modify one's morals to suit one's needs, and adopting Nietzsche's belief of a noble morality can be dangerous because doing what one wants may not only endangering that person but also society. Nietzsche, Darwin does not discredit altruism but embraces it. In The Descent of Man, Chapter 4: Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals, Darwin states that “we are therefore impelled to alleviate the sufferings of another, that our own painful feelings may at the same time be relieved.” . . The same way we are led... middle of paper....... To me it's that simple and it's not a bad thing. Even though I'm a selfless person who has thousands of volunteer hours under my belt, I do it not only because I enjoy helping others and have the resources to do so, but also because it makes me feel like a better person. This is selfishness in itself. As for Nietzsche, I don't understand his total denial of slave morality. I understand your point that slave morality can mask growth, but that's not always a bad thing. I felt that Nietzsche represented a one-sided picture of slave morality, instead of finding the good inner qualities and there are many. And the whole concept of noble morality seems too good to be true. I believe that people who adopt noble morality will have difficulty "doing what they want" in today's society because there are consequences for certain actions.