Research and development in criminal law and criminology

Research and development in criminal law and criminology

An Essay on the Genealogy of Punishment from Nietzsche's Perspective based on his Critique of Kant's Categorical Imperative

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Mohamadmehdi Sadeghi
PhD student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran
10.22034/jclc.2025.2045974.1119
Abstract
This article analyzes Nietzsche's perspective on the genealogy of punishment, grounded in his critique of the Kantian Categorical Imperative. As a philosophical method, genealogy entails a revaluation of all moral values by questioning their foundational principles, scrutinizing the validity of their definitions, and ultimately subjecting them to critique and reassessment. The categorical imperative obliges all individuals to act according to a universal law, irrespective of their personal desires or goals. In his critique, Nietzsche examines the theological underpinnings of Kantian thought, particularly the conceptual origin of God and the infusion of divine values into state-sanctioned punishment. He argues that while the right to punish originates in retribution for the harm a criminal inflicts upon a victim, the state has decoupled punishment from personal vengeance. Instead, it has ascribed this right to an impersonal, public entity, such as God or society. Consequently, this process generates an intensifying reservoir of psychic energy, which is conceptualized as "eternal punishment." This foundational study presents Nietzsche's genealogical analysis and explores its relevance to contemporary critical perspectives on state legal policies, thereby contributing to the theoretical literature on the genealogy of punishment.
Keywords
Genealogy of Punishment
Categorical Imperative
Nietzsche
Kant

  1. Kant, Immanuel. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Hamid Enayat and Ali Gheysari (2015). Tehran: Kharazmi Publications. (in Persian)

  2. Kant, Immanuel. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Behrouz Nazari (2010). Kermanshah: Bagh-e Ney Publications. (in Persian)

  3. Kant, Immanuel. (2003). Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Masoud Hosseini (2022). Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. (in Persian)

  4. Anbarsouz, Mohammad, & Kaviani Tabriz, Sheida. (2022). “An Evaluation of Nietzsche’s Critique of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.” Philosophical and Theological Research, 24(4), 127–145. (in Persian)

  5. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1988). On the Genealogy of Morality. Translated by Dariush Ashouri (2023). Tehran: Agah Publications. (in Persian)

  6. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1895). The Antichrist. Translated by Abdolali Dastgheib (2019). Tehran: Porsesh Publications. (in Persian)

  7. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1982). The Gay Science. Translated by Jamal Al Ahmad, Saeed Kamran, and Hamed Fouladvand (2022). Tehran: Jami Publications. (in Persian)

  8. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1997). Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Translated by Saeed Firouzabadi. (in Persian)

  9. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1889). Twilight of the Idols. Translated by Dariush Ashouri (2007). Tehran: Agah Publications. (in Persian)

  10. Fletcher, George P. (1987). “Law and Morality: A Kantian Perspective.” Columbia Law Review, 87, 533–558.

  11. Wood, Allen W., & Di Giovanni, George (Eds.). (2001). “What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?” In Religion and Rational Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  12. Hill, R. Kevin. (2003). Nietzsche’s Critiques: The Kantian Foundations of His Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  13. Connolly, William E. (1999). Why I Am Not a Secularist. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

  14. Strong, Tracy B. (2013). Politics without Vision: Thinking without Banisters in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Research and development in criminal law and criminology
Volume 2, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
August 2025
Pages 308-340