Discipline and Responsibility as a Meta-Value: Alignment with Nietzsche and Kant
In this article, we discuss the second of the so-called essential or fundamental values, which is the basis for all value hierarchies — both SIVHs (Structured Individual Value Hierarchies) and CVA (Corporate Value Architecture). In the framework of SelfFusion, this value is referred to as Responsibility and Diligence. There have been some key employees who have studied Nietzsche and/or Kant and state that the approach of those two authors and their moral philosophies could not be reconciled in this manner. We beg to differ, and this article explains both — the essence of discipline and its alignment with the approaches of both.
This article explores the essence of discipline and how it aligns with the philosophies of both Nietzsche and Kant.While their conclusions diverge — Kant advocating moral duty and Nietzsche promoting self-overcoming — both agree that true freedom is only possible through rigorous self-discipline and responsibility.
Self-Discipline as a Condition for True Freedom
Kant: Self-Discipline as Rational Autonomy
Kant’s moral philosophy is grounded in the idea that human beings, as rational agents, must govern themselves according to universal moral laws. For Kant, self-discipline is not about external restrictions but about overcoming internal inclinations that might lead one away from rational moral action.
His Categorical Imperative — the principle that one must act only according to maxims that could be universalized — demands that individuals rise above mere impulses, emotions, or personal desires. This requires a rigorous self-discipline in which reason subdues natural inclinations. True freedom, for Kant, is not doing whatever one desires but following the dictates of reason despite one's desires.
Thus, Kantian self-discipline is the process of training oneself not to act out of instinct, emotional whim, or subjective preference but in accordance with universal moral law. The individual masters himself by subordinating subjective tendencies to objective duty.
Key Kantian Principles Related to Discipline
Moral Worth Requires Overcoming Inclinations
Kant distinguishes between actions that merely align with duty and those that have moral worth. A person who follows moral law despite personal inclinations demonstrates true moral discipline.
Reference: Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.Autonomy as Self-Governance
True autonomy means obeying only self-imposed rational laws. If a person simply follows desires or instincts, they are not truly free—they are enslaved by their impulses.
Reference: Kant, I. (1788). Critique of Practical Reason.Freedom Through Rational Action
Kantian free will is disciplined. It is not the chaotic ability to choose anything but the structured ability to choose what is rational and right.
Reference: Kant, I. (1797). The Metaphysics of Morals.
Nietzsche: Self-Discipline as Mastery Over the Self
Nietzsche, despite his opposition to Kantian morality, also sees self-discipline as essential — but for entirely different reasons. For Nietzsche, the individual must overcome imposed moral systems and values to create one’s own values. This requires extreme discipline, self-awareness, and mastery over the self.
The Übermensch (Overman) does not indulge in base desires or impulses but wields self-discipline to shape himself into something greater. Nietzsche’s concept of self-overcoming means that one must constantly surpass oneself, reject comfortable illusions, and push beyond self-imposed limitations.
Key Nietzschean Principles Related to Discipline:
Will to Power as Self-Mastery
Nietzsche’s Will to Power is not about domination over others but rather mastery over oneself. This mastery requires discipline, as it involves rejecting herd morality, social conditioning, and personal complacency.
Reference: Nietzsche, F. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil.The Danger of Slave Morality
Nietzsche criticizes slave morality for encouraging passivity and resentment rather than strength and action.Those who lack discipline often justify their failures by blaming external forces rather than taking responsibility for self-transformation.
Reference: Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality.The Challenge of Eternal Recurrence
Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence forces individuals to consider whether they would live the same life over and over again. If the answer is "no," it indicates that one is failing to exercise discipline and responsibility over one’s life choices.
Reference: Nietzsche, F. (1883-1885). Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Thus, Nietzsche sees self-discipline as a necessity for true self-creation. Without it, individuals remain trapped by external values, impulses, and societal pressures. In this regard, his philosophy aligns with Kant’s, despite their different moral conclusions.
Free Will as Self-Determination
Both Kant and Nietzsche argue that most people are not truly free—freedom requires self-discipline and overcoming lower drives.
For Kant, this means adhering to moral duty and rational autonomy.
For Nietzsche, this means transcending imposed values and becoming a creator of one’s own.
In the SelfFusion framework, responsibility and diligence are seen as the necessary foundation for true freedom.Without self-discipline, neither moral law nor self-overcoming is possible.
Overcoming One’s Lower Nature
Both philosophers agree that human beings must overcome their "lower" selves.
For Kant, the lower self is irrational inclination.
For Nietzsche, the lower self is herd morality and weakness.
While their justifications differ, both emphasize the importance of overcoming mediocrity and base instincts through discipline.
Discipline as a Means to Transcend the Ordinary
Both Kant and Nietzsche reserve true greatness for those who have the strength to rise above ordinary human tendencies.
Kant’s moral individual transcends instinct through adherence to rational moral laws.
Nietzsche’s self-overcoming individual transcends mediocrity through creative self-discipline and power.
In both systems, freedom is not for the weak-willed. It demands a conscious effort to reshape the self.
Responsibility as the Unifying Principle
Nietzsche and Kant, despite their opposing worldviews, converge on the essential role of self-discipline and responsibility.
Nietzsche sees discipline as a means to self-transcendence.
Kant sees discipline as a means to moral duty.
However, both recognize that without responsibility, there is no true freedom.
Thus, in the SelfFusion model, responsibility and diligence are not just moral recommendations—they are the structural backbone of every functioning SIVH and CVA. A company or an individual lacking these principles will fail not due to external circumstances but due to their own inability to self-govern and apply discipline in their actions.
By aligning Kant’s duty-driven discipline with Nietzsche’s self-overcoming framework, SelfFusion provides a unified approach to responsibility that is applicable to both corporate leadership and individual decision-making.
Kant and Nietzsche as Two Paths to Self-Mastery
Despite their deep philosophical disagreements, Kant and Nietzsche share a foundational belief in self-discipline as the key to true freedom. While Kant’s disciplined individual obeys universal moral law, Nietzsche’s disciplined individual creates his own values and overcomes inherited ones through self-overcoming (Selbstüberwindung).
Both reject the idea that true freedom is merely acting on desires — instead, they insist that freedom requires mastering oneself, rising above the given, and becoming something more than a mere product of circumstance.
Thus, Nietzsche’s self-overcoming and Kant’s moral discipline are not opposites but rather parallel paths toward self-mastery — one through obedience to reason, the other through creative self-determination.
For Kant, the individual disciplines himself by acting according to universal moral laws, ensuring that his freedom is guided by reason rather than impulse.
For Nietzsche, the individual disciplines himself by forging his own path, rising above herd morality and pushing beyond societal expectations to create higher values.
In both cases, self-discipline is a prerequisite for true autonomy. Without it, freedom is an illusion, and individuals become slaves to their impulses, social expectations, or inherited values.
Underlying Core Idea – Sacrifice
The central concept in these cases relates to the idea of sacrifice, which we have also discussed in our other articles.
Sacrifice has three fundamental properties:
Temporality (the long-term impact of sacrifice).
Quantity (the degree of effort and resources one dedicates).
Quality (the level of meaningful transformation achieved).
Thus, in its essence, the following equation can be formulated:
Sacrifice = Responsibility = Diligence = Discipline = Self-Discipline
Regardless of specific personality traits, the underlying mechanism remains the same. Once an employee or leaderrecognizes this mechanism, it becomes significantly easier to accept responsibility as the second meta-value within the overall value hierarchy system.
This also correlates with modern cognitive science and behavioral psychology, which emphasize the importance of delayed gratification, conscientiousness, and goal-directed effort in long-term success.
Reference: Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). "Delay of gratification in children." Science, 244(4907), 933-938.
Additionally, studies on self-control have demonstrated that discipline and conscientiousness are better predictors of career success than raw intelligence alone—further reinforcing the necessity of responsibility and diligence as meta-values.
Reference: Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). "The strength model of self-control." Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355.
The Function of Meta-Values
Another important remark concerns Nietzsche, specifically regarding the function and essence of meta-values.
Although a large part of Nietzsche’s canonical corpus focuses on the creation of one’s own values, and he frequently emphasizes that mankind has repeatedly done so throughout history, this does not contradict the fundamental principle that responsibility functions as a meta-value upon which functional value hierarchies are built. There is a principled distinction between individual values within a value system and universal meta-values.
Regardless of the specific order of values in an individual's hierarchical structure, such a structure holds meaning as a guiding aim in life only if one of its underlying meta-values — alongside truthfulness and the realization of one's potential — is responsibility and diligence.
From an organizational perspective, this principle applies to Corporate Value Architectures (CVA) as well. A corporation's values are meaningless unless those values are reinforced through disciplined action, responsibility, and accountability.
Nietzsche himself recognized the necessity of responsibility in the process of self-overcoming, stating:
"You must become the master and sculptor of yourself."
—Nietzsche, F. (1883-1885). Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Likewise, Kant’s moral philosophy hinges on responsibility and autonomy, arguing that:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
—Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
Thus, the Deep Mind team of SelfFusion supports the idea that Nietzsche’s moral philosophy does not contradict SelfFusion’s framework. On the contrary, it reinforces one of its essential pillars — that discipline and responsibility are universal requirements for both personal and organizational success.
Some of the Traditions That Align with the SelfFusion Framework
The core ideas of the SelfFusion framework regarding self-discipline and personal responsibility as essential components of human freedom have been explored across many philosophical traditions. From Stoicism to modern existentialism, classical liberalism, and contemporary political thought, great thinkers have argued that true freedom is not found in indulgence but in self-mastery.
Below is a detailed examination of key figures and schools of thought that align with SelfFusion’s framework.
Stoicism: Freedom Through Rational Self-Control
Key Figures: Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius
Core Idea: True freedom comes from controlling one’s own mind and actions rather than external circumstances.
The Stoics believed that self-discipline and responsibility were the foundations of a meaningful life. They emphasized that while humans cannot control external events, they can control their reactions to them.
How Stoicism Relates to Self-Discipline and Free Will
Epictetus. "No man is free who is not master of himself." Argued that freedom is found within, not in external conditions. Taught that individuals must discipline their thoughts and desires to achieve inner peace.
Seneca. Emphasized self-restraint and rational decision-making. Believed that people should act with virtue, regardless of emotions or external pressures.
Marcus Aurelius. His Meditations serves as a handbook for self-governance and accepting responsibility for one’s own life. Advocated for calm endurance and moral responsibility.
Connection to Kant and Nietzsche. Like Kant, Stoicism promotes rational self-governance and duty to moral virtue. Like Nietzsche, it sees self-mastery as the path to greatness and warns against succumbing to weakness.
Reference: Hadot, P. (1995). "Philosophy as a Way of Life." Blackwell.
Modern Existentialism: Freedom as Personal Responsibility
Key Figures: Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus
Core Idea: Humans are radically free, and with that freedom comes absolute responsibility.
Existentialists argue that we are not determined by fate or external conditions — instead, we create meaning through our choices. However, this also means we bear total responsibility for our actions.
How Existentialism Relates to Self-Discipline and Free Will
Jean-Paul Sartre. "Man is condemned to be free." Argued that since there is no predefined essence or destiny, humans must take full responsibility for their choices. Bad faith (mauvaise foi) occurs when people avoid responsibility by blaming external factors.
Simone de Beauvoir. Applied existentialist freedom to ethics and feminism, arguing that women must take responsibility for defining themselves rather than accepting imposed roles.
Albert Camus. Explored how people must create their own purpose in an indifferent universe (The Myth of Sisyphus). Argued that the individual should rebel against despair and take control of their own fate.
Connection to Kant and Nietzsche. Like Kant, existentialists insist that humans are responsible for their moral choices. Like Nietzsche, they see freedom as an act of self-creation rather than submission to external systems.
Reference: Sartre, J-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Gallimard.
Reference: Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus. Gallimard.
Friedrich Hayek and Classical Liberalism: Freedom Through Personal Responsibility.
Key Figures: Friedrich Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith
Core Idea: Political and economic freedom require individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and choices.
How Classical Liberalism Relates to Self-Discipline and Free Will
Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom). Argued that government control over people’s lives destroys personal responsibility and initiative. Believed that individuals must be free to act on their own rational self-interest, with self-discipline guiding their choices.
John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). Freedom is meaningless without self-cultivation and responsibility. Advocated for individual sovereignty, meaning that as long as one’s actions do not harm others, they should be free to act.
Adam Smith (The Theory of Moral Sentiments). Ethics is based on self-governance and moral responsibility. Argued that true progress happens when people take moral responsibility for their actions in a free society.
Connection to Kant and Nietzsche
Like Kant, classical liberals see freedom as requiring self-restraint and moral responsibility.
Like Nietzsche, they emphasize self-direction and independence.
Reference: Hayek, F. A. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. University of Chicago Press.
Reference: Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. Longman, Roberts & Green.
Francis Fukuyama and Modern Political Thought
Key Figure: Francis Fukuyama
Core Idea: Modern liberal democracies require citizens to take responsibility for their freedoms.
Fukuyama’s work, especially The End of History and the Last Man, explores the role of freedom and responsibility in modern society.
How Fukuyama Relates to Self-Discipline and Free Will
Believes that democracy thrives only when individuals act responsibly. Warns against "soft despotism," where people surrender personal responsibility in exchange for comfort and state control. Sees Nietzsche’s critique of modern weakness as relevant — modern society risks making people passive, rather than strong and self-reliant.
Connection to Kant and Nietzsche
Like Kant, Fukuyama sees rational self-governance as crucial.
Like Nietzsche, he warns against cultural decline due to weakness and lack of personal responsibility.
Reference: Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.
Final Conclusion: The Universality of Self-Discipline and Responsibility
The idea that self-discipline and free will are inseparable is one of the most widely recognized truths in philosophy.Across different traditions and intellectual frameworks, from Stoicism to Existentialism, from Classical Liberalism to Modern Political Thought, the same core principle emerges:
Kant: Freedom = Rational moral responsibility.
Nietzsche: Freedom = Self-overcoming and power.
Stoics: Freedom = Mastery over emotions and desires.
Existentialists: Freedom = Radical responsibility for choices.
Classical Liberals: Freedom = Personal responsibility in society.
Fukuyama: Freedom = The challenge of maintaining democracy.
Though their philosophical foundations differ, they all share one essential belief:
Freedom is not given—it must be earned through self-discipline.
At SelfFusion, we emphasize that self-discipline, responsibility, and free will are not just abstract philosophical concepts—they are the foundations of success in both individual and corporate value hierarchies. Whether in personal growth, leadership, or decision-making, the ability to take responsibility for one’s actions remains the defining characteristic of true freedom and long-term achievement.
Some of the Primary Sources Used For The Article
1. Kantian Ethics and Moral Responsibility
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Kant, I. (1788). Critique of Practical Reason.
Kant, I. (1797). The Metaphysics of Morals.
Korsgaard, C. (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge University Press.
Wood, A. W. (2008). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
2. Nietzsche and Self-Discipline
Nietzsche, F. (1883–1885). Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Nietzsche, F. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil.
Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality.
Nietzsche, F. (1888). Twilight of the Idols.
Nietzsche, F. (Posthumous). The Will to Power.
Kaufmann, W. (1950). Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton University Press.
Leiter, B. (2002). Nietzsche on Morality. Routledge.
Nehamas, A. (1985). Nietzsche: Life as Literature. Harvard University Press.
3. Stoicism and the Philosophy of Self-Governance
Epictetus. (c. 108 CE). Discourses and Enchiridion.
Seneca. Letters to Lucilius and On the Shortness of Life.
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations.
Irvine, W. B. (2008). A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Oxford University Press.
Robertson, D. (2019). How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius. St. Martin’s Press.
4. Existentialism and Personal Responsibility
Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness.
Sartre, J.-P. (1946). Existentialism is a Humanism.
Beauvoir, S. de. (1949). The Second Sex.
Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus.
Camus, A. (1951). The Rebel.
Flynn, T. R. (2006). Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Cooper, D. E. (1999). Existentialism: A Reconstruction. Blackwell Publishing.
5. Classical Liberalism and Political Thought
Hayek, F. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. University of Chicago Press.
Hayek, F. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. University of Chicago Press.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
Smith, A. (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations.
Berlin, I. (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
6. Francis Fukuyama and Modern Political Thought
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
7. Modern Applications of Self-Discipline
Peterson, J. B. (2018). 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Random House.
