Nietzsche\'s Slave Morality and Master Morality PDF

Preview

Summary

An essay on the genealogy of morals and Nietzsche's concepts of slave and master morality...

Description

Daniel Laranetto 4/23/18 Contemporary Western Civilization II Final Paper

Nietzsche's Slave Morality and Master Morality

In Friedrich Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, the German philosopher sets out to trace the origins of morality and moral thought and then proceeds to challenge the dominant moral belief systems of the time. The first essay, titled “‘Good and Evil,’‘Good and Bad’”, explores the development of the two moral codes that Nietzsche believes have come to be at odds as a result of the fluidity of our ever-changing moral codes. One of his main arguments in this first essay is that modern moral concepts, born out of the rise of Judeo-Christian ideals, is damaging to the future of humanity as it values weakness and frailties and rejects many of the qualities that made man great in the first place. After considering the ideas of Nietzsche presented in The Genealogy of Morals, I was not totally convinced of his arguments. I find that, although Nietzsche's derivation of his two moral codes is logical, his interpretation of modern moral concepts is misguided and flawed. In this paper, I will present select parts of Nietzsche's work where I believe his argument loses strength and provide my reasoning for believing so. It is important to begin by explaining and discussing Nietzsche's historical analysis of the distinct geneses of these two moral codes. The first of these moral codes centers around the duality of ‘good and bad’. Nietzsche’s explorations on the

etymology of the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the moral context, led him to the finding that the concepts originally stemmed from the judgement of early rulers, conquerors, and colonizers who deemed the power, wealth, and control they had to be ‘good’ as opposed to the weakness and frailties of the poorer people they ruled over which they saw as ‘bad’. Nietzsche refers to this as ‘noble’ or ‘master’ morality because it was the powerful masters and aristocrats who determined what was judged as good and what was judged as bad. Contrastingly, the second moral code revolves around the relationship between ‘good and evil’. Nietzsche names this opposing moral code ‘priestly’ or ‘slave’ morality. Slave morality emerged when power shifted from the knights and aristocrats to priests, who in turn redirected the focus of morality from ‘good versus bad’ to ‘good versus evil’ or ‘pure versus impure’. In this way, Nietzsche asserts that slave morality was born as a response to master morality and became its direct opposition and greatest critic. The first issue I take with Nietzsche’s theory is how he argues Jewish and Christian attitudes were responsible for slave morality. I do not disagree with the notion that the religious traditions of Judaism, first, and then Christianity, had an immense impact on popular morality and were likely responsible for a major shift in moral beliefs. Within the system of slave morality, however, Nietzsche argues priests and their followers condemned the lives of the powerful rulers and warriors as lustful, secular, and most importantly, evil. On the other hand, they viewed the impoverished, humble, ascetic lives they lived as ‘holy’ and ‘good’. Nietzsche believes the priests believed a ‘good’, ‘pure’ life consisted of abstaining from things like sex, violence and war, certain foods, and other habits of the nobles. I disagree with Nietzsche because the actions of

Jewish and Christian followers cannot be simplified to simply ‘condemning’ the lives of others ‘evil’, ‘bad’, or ‘impure’. The focus and teachings of these religions is not condemn or criticize others, as they believe in a single judge of this Earth which is God. Priests and other members of these religions may have chosen to live ascetic lives of abstinence and humility, but this does not automatically suggest that the priests judged those who did not live in the same way as ‘evil’. I do not agree with Nietzsche’s insistence that Jewish and Christian ideals and ‘love’ are born out of hate. Jews, Nietzsche argues, are the greatest example of slave morality because they have been able to redefine moral valuations from those of master morality to a totally different set of values. They have associated themselves, who Nietzsche describes as poor and meek, with ‘goodness’ and the powerful and lustful as ‘evil’ and destined for damnation. A fundamental pillar in both Judaism and Christianity is to love, not hate, others. Both the Bible and the Torah teach the message of ‘love thy neighbor’. From the famous sermon on the mount the Bible tells of Jesus saying, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. This concept to love your neighbor and those who do wrong by you, which is prevalent in both Judaism and Christianity, does not align with Nietzsche’s descriptions of Judaism and Christianity as being driven by hate and resentment. This does not go to say that these religions and their ideals cannot be twisted and misinterpreted to lead some to resent or hate the powerful and rich, but Nietzsche explicitly says that Christian and Jewish love grew out of hatred which is inaccurate. “This love grew out of the hatred, as its crown, as the triumphant crown expanding ever wider in the purest brightness and radiance of the sun”, Nietzsche writes of the driving force behind Christianity.

Nietzsche is weary of slave morality, explaining that it is motivated by a deep feeling of resentment for the very qualities that make humans great in the first place. It threatens to undermine humanity’s greatness by raising up mediocrity and attacking excellence. This is because the priests responsible for slave morality, focused on the wrongdoings and evil of the powerful, preventing themselves and others from living their lives to the fullest. Those who have adopted slave morality, he argues, weakened by its values will choose to live inferior lives instead of taking the risks and actions needed to achieve superiority. The result of this is the emergence of the ‘tame man’ who Nietzsche describes as “incurably mediocre and unedifying” (Nietzsche 24). This ‘tame man’ has learnt to see himself as the “aim and pinnacle, the meaning of history, the ‘higher man’’’ and will feel so as long as he distances himself from “the superabundance of failed, sickly, tired and exhausted people of whom today’s Europe is beginning to reek” (Nietzsche 24). If he can do this, he will judge himself as being at least relatively successful and therefore accept his own mediocrity. Again, I am not convinced the argument that slave morality has contributed to this apparent decline in humanity. This is because Nietzsche, who seems to have a clear preference for master morality over slave morality, makes this argument through the lens of master morality. Motivating his argument is his fear of mankind departing from the qualities power and strength to weakness and sickliness. This point of view presupposes the master morality ideal that power and strength equates to goodness and that because people have become more humble and tame humanity has declined. At the center of Nietzsche's argument is a metaphor he uses to contrast slave and master morality. Both of these tools he uses, however are flawed and do not

directly support his argument. The metaphor compares a bird of prey and a lamb. Nietzsche likens the lamb to the priests and those who have adopted slave morality and the bird of prey to the masters and rulers of master morality. In this way, the lamb will judge the birds of prey for killing and declare them as evil. The lambs will also consider themselves good because they, unlike the birds, do not kill. But to Nietzsche the judgements of the lambs completely futile because lambs themselves do not kill out of choice, rather they do not kill because it is not in their nature they are unable to kill. Therefore, the lambs cannot claim to refrain from killing out of a moral position and are in no position to make moral judgements on the birds of prey for committing such an act. Furthermore, Nietzsche affirms that birds of prey can only be criticized for killing if they can be separated from the killing. That is, he believes the perpetrator of an act, such as the birds of prey, can only be judged for that act if the perpetrator is a distinct entity, separate from the act. It is absurd to, “ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength” (Nietzsche 26). The bird of prey and lamb metaphor is not an accurate comparison of master and slave morality, however, because the situation described is not directly applicable to humans. This comparison to animals cannot be translated to the morality of humans. As Aristotle puts forth in Nicomachean Ethics, as humans, we differ from animals and other creatures in our ability to reason. Most of the actions human commit have moral implications because our ability to reason allows us to feel and analyze complex emotions triggered by our own actions and the actions of those around us. In our

complex societies these actions are not a simple as killing or hunting for survival, as is the case for the birds of prey and other animals. Judging a bird of prey for killing a lamb because it needs to eat is completely different from judging a person for committing a crime against their neighbor. To support his argument, Nietzsche also references the grammar used in sentences such as, “lightning flashes”. He believes the subject predicate structure of grammar has contributed to components of slave morality. Nietzsche does not believe that the doers of acts can be detached from the acts themselves. To support this statement he argues, a force is just a “drive, will, action” and that in fact “it is nothing but this driving, willing and acting” (Nietzsche 26). For example, lightning cannot be detached from the flashing action. Lightning flashes, and it does not exist without flashing. But are there not counterexamples, to disprove this concept? For example, when applying this concept to humans is it not to say that a human exists separate from their actions and can therefore be judged for those actions. Is there not a difference between a man who steals from the poor and a man who gives to the poor. These men do not need to steal and do not need to give. They would exist without doing either and they have the free will and reason to decide which they will do. Does this reasoning not give others a means to judge the men based on their actions? From his insights, Nietzsche puts up his argument that slave morality is detrimental to the future of humanity and stresses his hope for the resurgence of master morality. One of the major flaws Nietzsche sees in slave morality is that slave morality is negative in its nature, criticizing and resenting those that exist outside of its realm. Master morality, is the opposite, rarely focused on the external and always

stressing the success and superiority of those who wield it. A person who lives by slave morality is driven by resentment and is filled with hate for their enemies, the nobles. In master morality, the concept of “bad” only comes about as a contrast and reaction to the noble’s goodness. In slave morality, the concept of “good” only comes about as a contrast and reaction to the noble’s wickedness. Therefore, what the master calls “good”, the slave calls “evil”. The resentment of all things powerful in slave morality, makes people ignore the present and their own value rendering them less powerful, less ambitious, and less driven to strive for improvements in life. Relating back to the bird and the lamb metaphor, slave morality praises those who are too weak to kill and fight for not killing and not fighting and this is what Nietzsche believes has rendered modern humanity as mediocre and impotent. Perhaps the largest complication with this analysis is that Nietzsche only provides two opposing moral codes. He believes in the beginning master morality defined what was ‘good’ and what was ‘bad’ and that slave morality has come to define what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’. I believe this is, like his take on Judeo-Christian morals and his application of the bird of prey metaphor, a significant oversimplification. The world cannot be evenly split up into masters and slaves because not everyone is either a master or slave. Likewise, morality does not fall into either master morality or slave morality. If slave morality has become so dominant and is weakening mankind so much, are we not all acting as the slaves. Who then are the masters that we resent so much and use to determine our morals? If everyone is a slave there would be no masters to look to and criticize.

Morality today does not fall into either of these categories. There is no emphasis on power as being ‘good’ and weakness ‘bad’ nor is there a belief that the weak are ‘good’ and the powerful ‘evil’. Morality is far too fluid to be bound to either one of these systems. There is no way to determine without doubt what is morally right and what is morally wrong because there is no universal law that determines this. And there is a difference between what is actually right and wrong and what is accepted as right and wrong by society, which is what Nietzsche appears to be referring to when he discusses morality. This is evident in the fact that every person has varying morals and values and no two people will agree fully on what is ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘evil’. Definitions of right and wrong vary from country to country and from culture to culture and so perhaps Nietzsche’s mistake was in putting such a large focus on the etymology of words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘evil’ when deriving his explanations of morality....