Nietzsche : The Re-Evaluator Of Human Values

Masters and slaves are constantly discussed throughout Nietzsche’s work, but the connection between them is discussed best in his book On the Genealogy of Morality. The first of the three essays outlines two alternate structures for the creation of values, which is credited to masters and the other to slaves.

In this Commentary of sections 1-7 of essay two in Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals, I will give a brief overview of the text, to help with showing the content that the comment covers, the go deeper into the individual sections and relate them to Nietzsche’s way of thinking and also look into any problems or solutions offered by those arguments.

In the following section, Nietzsche explains that the reassessment of values effected by the Jews was occurring and that they were not noticeable. One of their achievements was the development of the religious teachings Christianity. He states that the Christian love violated the Jewish hatred and that the representation of Jesus and his crucifixion was the persuasion of the moral code. The embodiment and crucifixion of Jesus showed that annulment of the moral code, was once “good” became “evil” and what

In essay two of Nietzsche’s ‘On the Genealogy of Morality’, ‘Guilt’, ‘bad conscience’ and related matters, Nietzsche seeks to explore the origins and constructs of guilt and in doing so, presents us with an account where the concept of guilt has been misconstrued by the evolution of society. This very shift in our understanding of guilt has subsequently led to, what Nietzsche claims to be, “bad conscience”. To understand this evolution of guilt and the entity of “bad conscience” it is necessary to closely analyze Nietzsche’s account and in doing so, delve deeper into the mechanics of Nietzsche’s understanding of our morality.

Nietzsche states that morality is not composed by the everlasting word of God or by the incontrovertible rationality like most psychologists claim rather, morality is socially constructed invented by one group to distinguish and empower themselves at the expense of the weaker group. To be more specific, the powerful and rich define what is good, this was concluded when they saw the differences between them and the weak and poor people below them. This system was called Good and Bad Master Morality, with this system the rich and powerful gave certain words a specific meaning and associated them with people. If the nobles are considered

During the late 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche examined the history of morals in his Genealogy of Morals. In his work, Nietzsche reveals the origin of morality, and he goes further to tear down the basis of Christianity and Kant’s Moral Law to show that there is a plurality of conflicting morals in society. Max Weber, who was a philosopher greatly influenced by Nietzsche, writes further on the plurality declaring that there is a polytheism that is the result of many conflicting values. Weber concludes that there is no science of ethics after Nietzsche, so there is no way to determine the “correct” value system. There is currently polytheism and a plurality of values that will not be resolved because all values are valid despite them conflicting

Most of the times Nietzsche understands and uses the word morality as the set of values and ideals typical of Christian western society. In this sense, it is safe to say that Nietzsche opposes morality and that genealogy serves the ultimate goal of undermining it. However, genealogy has of course a scope for application beyond the particular morality of 19th century Germans. Accordingly, my claim is that in Nietzsche Christian-western morality represents a particular instance of a more general concept of what morality is. So for example, in the preface to On the Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche claims that the object of the book is the value of morality, or, of ‘[…] all that has hitherto been celebrated on earth as morality […].’(GM P:3)

Friedrich Nietzsche was a man built upon contradictions. So much in fact, that one could argue him to be both one of the most anti-democratic thinkers and one of the most democratic thinkers of our time. If one attempts to read Nietzsche’s works as a whole, you may undoubtedly be persuaded that he is one of the most anti democratic political theorists in the modern era because of his insistence upon the need of a hierarchical, aristocratic society and his anti-equality stance on the relationship between men and women. But, if one reads select pieces of Nietzsche without prior bias of his works, one could argue that his views on the necessity of individuality and creativity make him a purely democratic thinker. This paradox creates problems

Fredrick Nietzsche would probably be worried about my morality. Growing up in an atheist household where Nietzsche’s assertion that “God is dead” was mostly true, the “sklavenmoral” of Christianity did not provide me with my set of morals, but neither did culture, as Nietzsche suggests, because neither of my parents were interested or educated in philosophy and art; I was only introduced to these subjects in school, after my morals had already been formed. Although Nietzsche may have been worried that someone in my situation would be helplessly immoral and lacking guidance, I know that I have a strong sense of right, wrong, and in between.

In “Beyond Good and Evil”, Nietzsche reveals the two primary forms of morality, this would be the master morality and slave morality. In the lecture we discussed Nietzche’s fatalism he believed that events people are fated, so each individual is fated to either have a master or slave type morality. The master morality is the morality of the people, who are strong willed people. The ‘good’ is the strong, powerful and the noble, whereas the ‘evil’ is the cowardly, powerless and meek. The essence of the master morality is dignity, bravery, honesty and sense of self-worth. That is to say that it takes the good and the bad are equivalent to nobility and shame. Master morality is the essentially the affirming morality. The Master morality affirms life, it is the here and now, and it is like nature and instincts.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s view of master and slave morality lies in the differentiation of two periods of time in western civilization. Before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, master ideals such as passion, pride, competition and the concept of accepting ones fate were accepted and considered positive traits. After the fall; Judeo/Christian thought replaced master ideals with what Nietzsche calls, slave ideals such as equality, humility, conformity and the hating/rejection of one’s place in life. The vilification of master ideals following the fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity led to a perversion of hierarchical roles in society where the weak rule and the strong are suppressed and imprisoned by faulty morality. Nietzsche’s roman

The Genealogy of Morals consists of a preface and three essays interrelated. These essays are used to get Nietzsche’s point across that morality in not all genetic, but that society plays a big part in one’s moral code. In his writings, he uses examples that fit each attack on society.

Some of Nietzsche’s ideas can be morally challenging to read. Although some may disagree with what he has to say; his words are still important. Nietzsche genuinely wrote about values, ethics, and will. Nietzsche doesn’t believe in a moral truth, but he certainly has an opinion on what ought to be done. We are to respect and appreciate his thoughts. Let’s dive into them.

Friedrich Nietzsche did not believe that absolute values existed. Rejecting the attempts to articulate the nature of the good life and what constitutes right actions, viewing it as nothing more than the expression of personal prejudice by people who are arrogant enough to believe they can prescribe for all human beings. Nietzsche believed there was only perspectives, no absolute values. Nietzsche’s views on the good life stemmed from his ideology of reality. He observed reality to be fundamentally amoral. That morality is one means through which humans can exert power. Whilst people view moral beliefs as factual, Nietzsche stated that, ‘moral beliefs are simply manifestations of the will in action.' Based on this statement, moral concepts can change over time as different dominant wills appropriate moral concepts and reconfigure are developed to suit specific needs. For Nietzsche, the notion of equal representation and equal rights represented an attempt to subvert the reality of human nature and to homogenise it. These ideals however, would lead humans to become mediocre, tame herd animals in whom the will is perverted According to Nietzsche, moral philosophy ignores the fact that morality is a problem, reduces it to a simple dichotomies like ‘good’ and ‘bad; and then assumes particular principles can be applied to all people. This, to Nietzsche, should not be the cause. Instead, Nietzsche advocated moving ‘beyond good and evil.’ The individual who understands that such

“The strongest and most evil spirits have so far done the most to advance humanity: again, and again they relumed the passions that were going to sleep – all ordered society puts the passions to sleep – and they reawakened again and again the sense of comparisons, of contradiction, of the pleasure in what is new, daring, untried; they compelled men to pit option against opinion: Friedrich Nietzsche states. This quote is saying how the evil spirits borough back humanity, but in my opinion wouldn’t they be good spirits if they did something for everyone?