Nietzsche Good Vs Evil

According to Nietzsche, the right and wrong (good and bad, good and EVIL) are just a type of the concept. Nietzsche explains that from the beginning in his first argument that the “good” did not originate among those to whom goodness was shown. It explains that the trait of “good” was really a trait as we know it today, it was actually people who were good themselves, which is Aristocratic who are powerful, high minded and high class people who controls the class below them and also politics in some cases. This was the concept that defined what right and wrongs were because it cleared things out that good was really a trait but the people who were powerful and high class in society, unlike bad which was completely opposite. But over the time

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher who believed that master morality was the superior morality as opposed to slave morality. He starts in the selection of “In Beyond Good and Evil” by saying “To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation and put one’s will on par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given…” Nietzsche explains here that if everyone could just treat each other equally, the world would be a lot better. In his opinion, those who believe this refuse to believe what this way of thinking really is, which is “a Will to the denial of life”. At this point, one has to think very deeply to the basis and must resist all sentimental weakness. Nietzsche says that “life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation,” but why should these words be used specifically when we live in a world where for ages the world has been marked with a disparaging purpose? People in a society treat each other in an equal manor. This type of behavior is taken place in almost every healthy aristocracy. If the society considered itself a healthy and not a dying society, and continues to maintain a positive outlook of things and refrain from doing negative things within the society, then the society will be the “incarnated

In the infamous novel, Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley, there have been a variety of recurring themes throughout the book, one of them being good versus evil. Good versus evil is a popular theme that appears in several movies, TV shows, as well as literature itself. According to Wikipedia.com, it means: “[...] the battle between ideologies, with one side Good, and the other Evil. Another variation is the inner struggle in characters (and by extension, humans in reality) between good and evil.” This theme is specifically crucial to the plot because it ultimately asks the readers what it means to be “human.” Shelley supports her representation by manipulating society’s behavior, questioning the limits of humans, and

It does not find its root and origin in objective circumstances; it originates from a place of suppression, of seeking freedom, and most significantly, of ressentiment. Herein the idea Nietzsche proposes is that the slaves are responsive against their noble masters because they are weak and impotent, leading to the festering of hatred and resentment. This means that values culminating from the revolt would be inaccurate in representing the true meaning of “good” or “evil”, because they were formed through the tainted lens of the slaves of ressentiment. They would portray the slaves, the weak, and the powerless as “good” and favourable, while casting the nobles, the masters, and the upperclassmen in an “evil” and malicious light. This inverts the original notion that the nobles are the definition of “good”. Nietzsche expounds this situation by clarifying that the nobles become “blond beast[s]” (Nietzsche, page 128) when out of their familiar circumstances, insinuating that they turn into a barbaric state where they seek victory over those who are inferior to them. In turn, displays of brutality will be expressed, as a by-product of this barbarism and therefore, fulfilling the morality of the nobles as “evil”. Nietzsche also expresses that this form of morality may not always be beneficial; it cages the

These two structures are controlled by different intangible themes. The first is ‘good/bad’ in terms of master morality and the second is ‘evil/good’ in terms of the slave morality. Noble classes and races, according to Nietzsche, started by defining their actions, themselves and their way of life as ‘good’, while ‘bad’ simply referred to anything that was not noble – “everything lowly, low-minded, common and plebeian” (OGM, Sec. I.2). In contrast, the morality of slaves discusses a position of weakness rather than strength. It starts by redefining the masters’ values as ‘evil’, while ‘good’ refers to anything opposed to that of ‘evil’. Unable to create their own original values, the slaves instead invert the values of their masters. This makes the master morality affirmative and favorable, while the slave morality is reactant and adverse. Deleuze, in an interpretation of Nietzsche, summarizes these two positions as a constrasting formula: where the master’s saying is “I am good, so that means you are bad”, while the slave’s logic is that of ‘ressentiment’: “You are evil, so that means I am good.”

Quite possibly the most poignant and eye-opening relationship of the entire play of Hamlet and his mother, becomes sabotaged by Hamlet internalizing Catholic driven dogma. People often resort to using religion as a moral compass to give their lives structure and personal guidance. Friedrich Nietzsche, a prominent figure associated with the existential movement states in his book, Beyond Good and Evil, that “Perhaps one the most solemn concepts which have occasioned the most strife and suffering, the concepts ‘God’ and ‘sin’, will one day seem to us of no more importance than a child’s toy and a child’s troubles” (82). Clearly, Nietzsche actively rejects the concept of committing sins, which is the binding force in most religions. To begin,

In a small rebel held town in Idlib province, the Syrian government used chemical weapons and killed dozens of civilians and injured hundreds more, including children. On April 6th United States President Donald J. Trump sent fifty-nine cruise missiles to an airbase responsible for the attack to protect the people of Syria. In this situation Donald Trump wanted to help the innocent civilians, but also made the United States a target and put the citizens of U.S. at risk. This is a perfect example of good versus evil. Literature writing also uses the theme of good versus evil. In the books The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Night by Elie Wiesel the themes of good and evil are developed by showing selfishness and loss.

This paper is a comparative study between Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil and Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. Detailing their views regarding ethical and unethical law.

Nietzsche remarks on how different the concepts of “evil” and “bad” are, in spite of both being considered the opposite of “good.” He explains this difference by explaining that there are two very different concepts of “good” at work: The noble man’s “good” is precisely what the man of ressentiment calls “evil” (Alderman).

Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher in the 1800’s. His work has since influenced, impacted, and brought forth new questions for many philosophers to follow. One of Nietzsche’s famous writings Beyond Good and Evil expresses his views on society and the two different classes it holds, slave and master. He expresses his belief that the two are in warfare with one another, the strong (master) fighting for the will to power, while the weak (slave) tries to pull the master down to their level using clandestine forms of revenge. Nietzsche believed the slave morality was one that included humility, obedience, and submission, and was the destructive choice and attribute of Christianity, while the master morality was full of arrogance and pride

After connecting the passage to Nietzsche’s opinion of a fulfilled lifestyle, I believe that he would disagree with Smith’s way of living. The two have contrasting ideas, in which Nietzsche’s seems to be a more ethical one in the fullest sense.

Argument about the Nature of Good and Evil As Presented In the Novella According to the Ester and Joshua (125), the concept of ‘evil’ takes on two sides; the broad concept and the narrow notion. The broad concept presents any bad state of affairs, wrongful action or a flaw in character. It is into two, which are the natural evil and the moral evil. Natural evil is non-intended bad state of affairs while moral evil, on the other hand, results from the intentional bad state of the affairs.

Man’s development of “bad conscience” is a complicated process that sees its beginnings in slave morality’s doubling of the doer and the deed. According to Nietzsche, the slave (the weaker man) had developed ressentiment towards the noble (the stronger man), labeling the noble as evil and blaming him for slave’s suffering (20-22). The slave separated the noble (the doer) from his instinctive actions (the deeds) and claimed the noble possessed “free will;” the slave believed “the strong are free to be weak” (26). The slave set up the ideal of his own weak and passive instincts being “good” and the strong and active instincts of the nobles being “evil” (26-27). As stated by JHarden, when defining his weakness as good, “the slave turned [his] natural condition of suffering at the hands of others into a condition which should be desired” (JHarden). As religions developed, and the slave morality became dominant, this ideal of good and evil prevailed and forced man to become conscious of his instincts as separate from himself, something he could control.

The concept of morality plays an important role in human society. Through the discovery of what, exactly, determines that which is “good” and that which is “bad”, humans develop mechanisms that determine how they respond to or judge any given situation. What remains a mystery, however, is what, exactly, is the basis of morals. It is commonly believed that morals are learned through lived experiences, as well as, from those who act as each person’s individual caretaker(s). Even though these factors do play a significant role in determining morality, these factors alone neither create nor determine a person’s moral compass. In Paul Bloom’s work, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, we are introduced to the idea that morality, while partly learned, is something that is ingrained in humans from birth. Through multiple studies, performed both by Bloom as well as other psychologists, it is revealed that not only are babies able to perceive what is right and what is wrong, but also, from birth, babies are instilled with the innate knowledge of empathizing, valuing fairness and status, and valuing those who look similar versus those who look different. In spite of previous ideas, Bloom proves that babies are smarter than previously thought, while simultaneously recognizing the shortcomings of this “elementary” form of morality. Bloom’s finding prove to be revolutionary, in that they allow for the examination of different social structures, their shortcomings, and what

For Nietzsche, “the slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” (Nietzsche 913). This imaginary revenge causes the complete reversal in defining words of class. The resentful slaves and priests looked up at the nobility with anger, characterizing them as selfish, corrupted, abusive and tyrannical, among other things. Ultimately, they came to the conclusion that the nobility were the pinnacle of evil. In doing so, “he has conceived ‘the evil enemy,’ ‘the Evil One,’ and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a ‘good one’—himself!” (Nietzsche 915). Through the venomous eye of ressentiment, the slave class has characterized the good men, those with strong moral character as evil, and in doing so, has