Nietzsche: the Conscience

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

Many people today wonder what caused Stephen Paddock to shoot 605 people, including himself. Acting like an average and moral man prior to the shooting, Paddock makes it difficult to understand the reason behind his actions. While we cannot deduce the exact cause of Paddock’s evil act, we can study the general roots of the immoral actions of good people through other historical examples. Although many believe that humans are innately good and act accordingly, events throughout history have proven that the potential self-gain that evil can bring drives seemingly good people to do horrible things when it outweighs in their sight the gratification of acting morally. Egocentrism or a lack of fear of punishment, because they cause a danger comparable to that caused by greed, can lead even the most moral person astray.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense represents a deconstruction of the modern epistemological project. Instead of seeking for truth, he suggests that the ultimate truth is that we have to live without such truth, and without a sense of longing for that truth. This revolutionary work of his is divided into two main sections. The first part deals with the question on what is truth? Here he discusses the implication of language to our acquisition of knowledge. The second part deals with the dual nature of man, i.e. the rational and the intuitive. He establishes that neither rational nor intuitive man is ever successful in their pursuit of knowledge due

Exegesis and Critique of Nietzsche’s Conception of Guilt In The Second Essay of On the Genealogy of Morality

Nietzsche suggest the alternate path of morality based on faith in oneself. ‘One could conceive of such a pleasure and power of self-determination, such as a freedom of will’. To go down this path, one must become aware that their actions can be their own, rather than in accordance with faith in God.

Wikipedia defines morality as “a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong.” (Wikipedia Morality) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a German philosopher thought up of the idea that there are two moralities; The master and slave morality. These define a person by there actions to there world around them and how they handle certain situations they encounter throughout their natural life. I believe he chose these two because they seem to be strong opposites and there are rational.

Humanity, according to Nietzsche, is infected by an illness. It is the kind of illness that has infected every single man, religious or non-religious alike. It is his aim to release his readers from the illness. In much the same way as a doctor, he wishes to do so by primarily sourcing the cause of the illness, and secondly by diagnosing it. It is Nietzsche’s belief that this metaphoric illness is morality.

According to Nietzsche’s assertions in the first two essays of On the Genealogy of Morals, human beings suffer because they have lost the ability to enjoy life to its fullest extent. A significant shift in morals occurred from the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who carried out good deeds with a surplus of energy simply because they could afford to do so, to the predominantly Judeo-Christian era of self-repression. This transition demonstrates a decline in our ability to make sense of our lives and understand our true human purpose. Nietzsche suggests that we have become out of touch with the truth – we are no longer present in our lives. He urges us to recognize the social constraints to which we sometimes unknowingly submit

Because we are so keen on learning, we are disengaged from our experiences, and therefore are not in the right place to understand ourselves (3). The words that are used to define any given concept are not to be taken at face value since the judgment of our moral values depends on their respective time periods and cultural influences, which are subject to change as everything else does. In other words, they are products of the moral projections of people’s values, which often have a multitude of dimensions that surpass the shallow fields of initial interpretation. Consequently, we need to look beyond the surface interpretation of these words by re-interpreting their meanings many times to be able to judge what we believe. As we change with time, our interpretations are subject to change, and our value systems evolve, both preventing us from establishing absolute meaning regarding anything. As a result, we cannot truly understand concepts unless we remove several historical layers from them. Many times throughout his polemic, Nietzsche hints at the necessity of asking a question from “various perspectives” (41). “Understanding the demonstrated purpose or utility of a thing, its form, its organization” is not

The novels The Secret History by Donna Tartt and Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky explore the workings of conscience in the leading characters. In The Secret History, a small group of intellectual, undergraduate Greek scholars experiences the harsh repercussions of a ‘bad conscience’ after committing a murder whilst trying ‘to live without thinking’ and a further murder - which is vital in their opinion - to avoid being caught. In Crime and Punishment, a destitute ex-student named Raskolnikov is haunted by his conscience in everything he does after committing a cold-blooded murder whilst acting on the pretext that he is ‘an extraordinary man… able to commit atrocities… as if the law does not apply [to him.] ’ The contemporary 1860’s

Nietzsche claims that guilt today has been misconstrued as a result of the slave morality. The internalization process that man underwent through the ‘slave revolt in morality’ created depth and inner reflection that led to what Nietzsche calls “bad conscience”. This notion of bad conscience was ultimately caused by the forced turning of our violent instincts to punish others inward. This ‘turning’ resulted in frustration as man lacked the capability to express himself, in result of this, we created an inner life and conscience that sought to remove these instincts. Bad conscience is therefore something that goes against life, that sickens humanity, it does not allow for an expression of man’s vitality for life. Instead, bad conscience defines a new set of values for humanity that insist suffering to be something that destroys life. The concept of guilt now takes on a different meaning; it represents an internal punishment.

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.

Both sides of the dichotomy believe the other to be evil and themselves good. Nietzsche characterizes these two competing morality’s as slave and master morality. Master morality values dominance over the weak and despises cowardice, humility, and narrow utility. Conversely, slave morality values compassion, humility, and submissive behavior. Nietzsche believes that those accepting slave morality accept it because their condition doesn’t allow for fulfillment of master morality. This isn’t to say they would abandon slave morality if their condition improved, but that their initial acceptance is rooted in the restricted lifestyle of commoners.

Humanity’s natural aggression means that civilization is “constantly threatened with disintegration” and it must make every effort to ensure these urges are curbed, in order for its continued existence. He continues in this vein, by stating that, in order for people to “forgo the satisfaction of their tendency to aggression” civilization encourages us to form into groups, however for this to work their must continue to be “outsiders,” that the aggression can be turned towards. This is in accordance with On the Genealogy of Morals, where it is the Slaves ascetic nature that forces them to also control their instincts. Likewise, both Freud and Nietzsche assert that these restrictions cause people to internalise their aggressions, turning inward.

Nietzsche begins to talk about humans and master morality. As defined by Nietzsche, master morality is thought to be in relevant