Critical analysis of Nietzsche's statement: Actions done out of love are always beyond good and evil Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the famous philosophers , German cultural critics and essayist. Nietzsche's works on aesthetics, fulfillment, truth, cultural theory, the meaning of existence, language, decency, history, power, and nihilism have had a vast impact on the Western way of life and intellectual account. This author once stated that: “actions done out of love are always beyond good and evil” and most of his readers have realized that there are several holes in this statement. Therefore, this analytical article will evaluate Nietzsche's statement in line with his wide-ranging teachings contained in some of his materials. By analyzing Nietzsche's statement that “What is done out of love is beyond good and evil” one should be able to describe what the meaning of Good and Evil is. An action is said to be “good” when it offers a gratifying result to the person doing it or to those affected by it. On the other hand, an evil action leads to a non-beneficial outcome. In other words, an evil act is the antipodes of a good act (Degünther 2014). Furthermore, one must understand that an action is neither bad nor good in itself, but to some extent it is the ending that describes its place in the realm of good and bad. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn one of his books "Beyond Good and Evil" Nietzsche accuses theorists of precedents of lacking decisive sagacity and of blindly conforming to doctrinal premises in their contemplation of morality. In particular, he accuses them of initiating ostentatious metaphysical schemes on the belief that the man deemed moral is the opposite of the man deemed evil, rather than simply a different expression of similar crucial inclinations that find more decisive expression in the evil person (Nietzsche 2017 ). The goodness and evilness applied by the writer refer to the contradictory polar principles of Christian ethics. They are therefore not automatically exactly the same as we understand these expressions. Friedrich himself understood that the Christian ethical scheme was synthetic and had been imposed on the earth which before its inception had analyzed things at a more basic level of Evil or Good, which, vulgarly, can be understood as "that which is favorable to 'tributary of man's life' and 'that which is not' (Owen 2014). Therefore, when Nietzsche states that "actions performed out of love are always beyond good and evil", he implies that love occurs naturally, it is an innate, instinctive accident. This virtue is devoid of ethical content and, if it were to have it, it would certainly fail to understand the Christian principles that see love as probity of compassion and piety. Nietzsche understands sympathy as opposed to the effluent of people's lives, because, again frankly, if people sympathize with the wicked then they lack the incentive to emerge robust and allow themselves to be enveloped in a Christian ethical structure that lifts the pathetic and recovers so the strong. This statement therefore demonstrates that love is devoid of ethical content. Nietzsche means that it is ordered and superior to everything else and therefore should not be thought of as an ethical structure, but rather as an elementary sensation of life. Furthermore, it should be noted that Nietzsche's statement is a challenging notion. The question we should ask ourselves is: what did the novelist mean by good, evil and love. When it comes to love, Friedrich seems to be transversal. He says there is a certain madness in lovebut that there is always a reason for that madness. Then another time he underlines that love is understanding and at the same time enjoying the fact that a counterpart or another person acts, experiences and lives differently from us. Furthermore, the writer doesn't have much affirmative to say about feminine or bodily affection, leading me to surmise that the kind of "love" he was reflecting on when he stated that "actions done out of love are always beyond good and evil "maybe it had nothing to do with the hunger for sexual activity, but maybe not. This line of thinking makes the whole topic multifaceted because surely sexual intercourse can be an act done out of love. Consequently, perhaps for him too, female affection and lovemaking as a demonstration of love are likely, at least in speculation if not in reality. As for iniquity and good, I suppose that, as with Nietzsche, evil can be anything that is “life-denying” and good is anything that is “life-affirming.” It can therefore be argued that all kinds of love lexicons are, so to speak, on the table, because both women and sexual acts can be perceived as life-affirming along with many other categories of affirmation. Therefore, if everything that is "done for love" goes forward both to the denial of life and to the affirmation, then love can be said to be a magnificent or past force for life itself and its power, therefore, does not belong to this . world. Evidently, what Nietzsche may have implied is that loving actions take people outside the confines of the principles of this human race. This could however become complicated as it denotes that there could be no laws of love nor even a scheme of impartiality by which we can judge his actions. The insinuation is that even an offense committed in the name of love could be tolerated and the perpetrator not judged according to the law, neither divine nor human. This is something we should all think about. Furthermore, Nietzsche's statement "actions performed out of love are always beyond good and evil" seems to describe a shift of the reference point towards "bad and good", that is, from a goal to be achieved, or a line to cross, towards a lifestyle, a system of living towards others that goes beyond mere ethical lines. The virtue of love encompasses much more than simply living towards what is said to be good and away from what is seen as evil. It is not about meeting certain predetermined standards, but rather, to paraphrase (Smoley 2008), about the survival-superfluity of life. This echoes, in a sense, (Bankowski's 2013) examination of the connection between love and law in which he sees love as a realization of the law, but this involves a new correlation with the "law" of "evil and good,” an oscillation from simple conformity to going beyond, to weighing life in other dispositions than just “good and bad.” Love stops exemplifying the other in the requirements of evil or good and therefore also revolutionizes our affiliation with ourselves in a similar way. When someone loves, their actions are not simply an external evil or good, but rather something more, something that they realize and overcome and cannot be reduced to the mere binary outcomes of conformist (slave) principles. Perhaps an alternative approach to analysis is to contrast it with the perception discrepancy between evaluating the aesthetic value of something versus its functional value. These two are not closely related, but they are not similar either. Certainly this particular comparison is exclusive because love is functional and not just amazing, but I believe it comes down to the characteristic of acting with affection that goes beyond “bad and good”. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get one now”.