Additionally, Aristotle observes that ethical living calls for application of wisdom that depends upon the situation at hand rather than the mere application of the set laws. He referred to this kind of as practical wisdom or prudence which is different from the theoretical wisdom(Kamtekar, 2004).
On the contrary, Friedrich Nietzsche looks at ethics as untenable phenomenon. Nietzsche argues that ethics is deleterious and can just be relevant in the case of the highest types of human beings (Katsafanas, 2011). This is because ethics requires a high degree of consequentialist perfectionism of good. One thing to note however is that Nietzsche is a not a critic of morality in totality. He for example agrees with the notion of a higher morality that informs the living of higher men both of which he attacks and praises. Nietzsche offers an analysis of the existing values in a way that appeals to some morality of some kind. Nietzsche advocates for similarity of all people, free will and transparency(Katsafanas, 2011). However, Nietzsche argues for the harm of the highest men while advancing the interests of the lowest men.
Further, Charles Darwin brings about the concept of evolutionary ethics which has two broad perspectives of normative ethics and descriptive ethics. Regarding descriptive ethics, it consists of biological ethical approaches anchored upon the role of evolution in determining human behaviour and psychology. Darwinism ethics is based on the scientific aspects of ethology, socio-biology and psychology with a focus on explaining and understanding preferences of ethics or choices (Lillehammer, 2010). On the other hand, normative ethics of evolution depicts a more independent attempt to singlehandedly use evolution to justify ethics in a society. Descriptive evolutionary ethics delve on the beliefs and moral attitudes. The ethical underpinnings discussed on this ethical