The morality philosophy by Nietzsche
The moral philosophy by Nietzsche criticizes morality for its commitment to shaky descriptive assertions about human agency. He also criticizes the toxic effect of its unique values and norms on the thriving of the highly placed human beings. Nietzsche (2) describes the origin of morality as “The pathos of nobility and distance, as I have said, the chronic and despotic esprit de corps and fundamental instinct of a higher dominant race coming into association with a meaner race, and under race.” Nietzsche aimed to free human beings from their deceitful realization about morality and not the transformation of the entire society. This paper provides a detailed discussion about Nietzsche’s distinction between “good/bad” versus “good/evil” and how they relate to the ethics of master morality and slave morality. The paper also identifies why Nietzsche is opposed to Christianity and democracy.
Nietzsche believed that morality was defined by an individual’s current condition, thus disputing the existing and unexamined perception that defined virtue as being absolute. Nietzsche wanted to stress his view that people of noble personalities ought to have an ethical system that is more refined compared to the principles and rules adopted by the traditional moralities of both the lower class and bourgeoisie.
In defining “good/bad,” Nietzsche associates good to be that which was linked to power and strength. The powerful and noble people in the society were the ones that defined what was good and bad as they considered themselves to be good. Nietzsche treats goodness as a type of aristocracy. The influential persons distance themselves from others whom they consider to be plebian. On the other hand, bad was associated with what was humiliating, weak and disadvantaged. People with no power and will in the society are associated with bad which includes cowardice and lying. According to Nietzsche (4), individual with power and authority to develop own values, also has the power to give meaning to the world as goodness is rooted in social class other than real morality.
Nietzsche also provides an argument that the conventional concept of Good/bad had been supplanted by the good/evil concept adopted by Judeo-Christian. The good/evil concept was built on the hatred that slaves in the Roman Empire had towards their bosses. In this new concept, good is everything associated with the slaves, and which included humility, being passive and meek. Nietzsche (4) describes people facing and resenting to oppression as being good. The oppressed dislike the force applied by their oppressors; hence they conceptualize that not retaliating, being harmless and nonviolent are good. The notion of being meek and patient is often connected to righteousness.
On the other hand, evil was everything that was associated with masters. It included being greedy, violent, and strong. According to Nietzsche (20), the less powerful people consider their masters as being enemies and label them as being evil. Disenfranchised people depict autocrats as “beasts” who chase and target on the weak conceptualize them as being evil. According to Hendricks )n.p), good is technically not justifiable, as some versions of good may be evil. If an individual does good because he/she is being forced to do it, then that is slavery, which is considered evil. Personal assumptions corrupt the good actions of this individual.
While master morality upholds power and pride, slave morality, on the other hand, tends to value sympathy, kindness, and empathy. Alternatively, while master morality judges actions as either good or bad, slave morality judges based on good or evil (Nietzsche 30). The master morality entails people with both body and mind strength and who consider themselves to be good. Master morality highly regards things like excellence, wealth, self-actualization, ambition, and glory. Since those in high social class favor it, this type of morality has few followers who are undisturbed with the discontentment from the many. The bosses are creative and are ready to experiment with new life choices that suit them regardless of widespread disapproval and also have no yearning to follow a prearranged life course. Master are also open-minded and willing to change their minds by acquiring new information.
Slave morality is based on the good/evil concept. It aims to praise the weakness of the oppressed people and condemn the power possessed by the masters. Things owned by masters are considered to be evil because the slaves cannot afford them. Therefore this lack is regarded as being good (Hendricks n.p). An example is where these people uphold humility because they do not have a thing that makes them proud. Slavery morality is motivated by fear of how masters might react. The slave morality is just but a bitter grapes into a value system that makes slaves believe that all power is bad.
In conclusion, appears to side more on masters’ slavery and criticizes slavery morality. Nietzsche is opposed to Christianity and democracy as he feels they are founded on slavery morality that encourages dull lives. According to Nietzsche (25), “The preponderance of the mandarins never signifies any good, any more than does the advent of democracy, or arbitration instead of war, equal rights for women, the religion of pity, and all the other symptoms of declining life.” Nietzsche feels that the two are hindrances to societal progress.
Works Cited
Hendricks, Scotty. “The Master and Slave Moralities: What Nietzsche Meant.” Big Think, 1 Jan. 2019, bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-master-and-slave-moralities-what-nietzsche-really-meant.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic. Vol. 13. Macmillan, 1924.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Nietzsche: Beyond good and evil: Prelude to a philosophy of the future. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
\