Philosophy is an interpretation of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, existence, and moral values. No particular philosophy can necessarily be proven true; however, some interpretations are more cogent than others. Two great philosophers of the nineteenth century were John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche. While both great philosophers, Mill and Nietzsche have radically different interpretations of moral values. Mill’s ethics are based upon the principle of utility which “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (II, p.7). Essentially, Mill believes that human beings should act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness…show more content… He meant for his philosophy to be read by “we men of knowledge” (GM Preface.1). Nietzsche basically intended his works to be read and interpreted by fellow philosophers, placing them above average people. He refers to philosophers as “the healthy,” and to non-philosophers as “the sick.” He surmises that philosophers should not associate themselves with non-philosophers, so as to avoid becoming sick themselves. In order to comprehend his reasoning, the concept of the ascetic priest must first be addressed. Asceticism is characterized by abstaining from worldly pleasures, practicing self-denial, and having faith in something (in the case of religion, having faith in God). Ascetic priests are sick themselves, but they preach to their fellow sick followers. Nietzsche claims that philosophers disguise themselves as ascetic priests: “[P]hilosophy would not have been possible at all on earth without ascetic wraps and cloak” (GM III.10). Originally, philosophers had to disguise themselves in order to be able to practice their philosophy without the scrutiny of the sick. Nietzsche suggests that there is still not enough freedom of will for philosophers to be able to drop the façade; however, philosophers see asceticism (not ascetic priests) as a good thing because it helps them in their search for knowledge, which ultimately increases their feeling of power. Philosophers, disguised as…show more content… Mill states that mankind is primarily a social species, and human beings “desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures” (III, p.32). This means that society can only function properly if the interests of all of its members are regarded equally. For example, if a doctor were to regard his personal needs as more important than the needs of his patient, there would be no society between equals. This biased doctor would be violating the natural desire to be one with his “fellow creatures.” Mill’s impartiality/equality rule mandates that in regard to one’s own happiness “utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” (II, p.17). If philosophers were to only look after themselves and isolate themselves from society like Nietzsche suggests would be prudent, Mill would deduce that this behavior would be morally wrong. One can only improve society if he/she continues to be an equal part of