Nietzsche's On The Genealogy Of Morals

Nietzsche was a revolutionary author and philosopher who has had a tremendous impact on German culture up through the twentieth century and even today. Nietzsche's views were very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of his time and nearly all of his published works were, and still are, rather controversial, especially in On the Genealogy of Morals. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme and dangerous if taken out of context or misinterpreted. After Nietzsche's death it took very little for his sister to make some slight alterations to his works to go along with Nazi ideology.

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).

Nietzsche introduces the initial concepts of what is good to be determined by those who have benefitted from unegoistical

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.

Christianity had become the enemy of life and nature and the church has stifled its followers by turning them into closed minded and weak humans. Nietzsche ultimately believed that religion creates a concept of anti-natural morality which damages our development as humans quite

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

This distinction between meaning and act not only applies to punishment, but to almost all moral concepts. For example, the act of harming a person whether it is for the purpose of self-preservation, or to exercise power over another, is still the same act. The difference lies in the will of the person who is performing or interpreting the act. The will to power, which Nietzsche identifies as an instinct for freedom, is the drive to avoid being dominated by another. Man is forced to subdue this instinct, as well as other instincts and drives in order to participate in modern society.

This passage as soon I read it really got me engaged. I felt like this was one of the sections I was able to truly relate to, and apply to my own life. Immediately I began to think about some of the stories my parents have shared about how my parents were punished when they were children. Now back in the 1960’s when they were kids, it was okay for their parents to smack them. It was just normal in society back then. They both agreed that, “The physical discipline they received did not make them feel guilty about what they did. Instead, it made them scared to do it again.” This goes along with what Nietzsche said. My parents stopped talking back and fighting with their siblings because they were scared of how their parents would punish them, they did not stop because they felt bad about it. Their vitality was broken down. I completely agree with it too. When I was a child I got it way easier than my parents did. When I got punished I was told to go in my room and not able to have any electronics. They would always tell me, “Think about what you did.” This was a method of theirs that truly was effective. As the time went by I would continuously think about how much trouble I caused my parents no matter how little the cause of my

Nietzsche was concerned with a genealogical project to determine the birth of values through an assessment of the historical. He was able to conclude morality as phenomena that has “become” and was not always evident, as it is motivated “by the drive for preservation” and “the intention to achieve pleasure and avoid displeasure” as he states in the chapter Deconstruction of Metaphysics in his book Nietzsche and

In Nietzsche’s aphorisms 90-95 and 146-162 he attacks what he believes to be the fundamental basis of the “slave” morality prevalent in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well as other religions and societies. From the beginning, he distinguishes the two different types of moralities he believes to exist: the “master morality”, created by rulers of societies, and the “slave” morality, created by the lowest people in societies. The former stresses virtues of the strong and noble while looking down upon the weak and cowardly. This type of morality, however, is not as widespread as the “slave morality” that has been adopted by so many religions. Nietzsche looks through the psychology and logic of

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.

On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche is typically listed as one of the most important philosophical works of the modern era. It is only modern, of course, to philosophical standards, being a mere 129 years old. It is also one of the most controversial works of its time, having the dubious distinction of being connected to Nazi ideology; it also has a not very subtle racist, sexist, and Darwinist bent that is a reflection of Nietzsche himself. That being said, I think that it is also serially misunderstood. Nietzsche directly mentions the role of interpretation in ethical discourse in the Genealogy, and the interpretive element factors heavily into one’s understanding of the polemic and by extension, ethics philosophy as a whole. Throughout the book, Nietzsche uses interpretation as a tool in itself to make a constructivist and existentialist argument about the history of ethics as whole. His idea that man has used interpretation throughout history, and the interpretive elements in Genealogy outside of the historical analysis, seem to say that almost all ethics are derived from interpretation and therefore constructivist in nature, which is a heavily existentialist argument. For example, the entirety of the first essay is based heavily upon the role of interpretation in the development of the early ethical systems that Nietzsche argues are built on the

Nietzsche begins his discussion of good and moral with an etymological assessment of the designations of “good” coined in various languages. He “found they all led back to the same conceptual transformation—that everywhere ‘noble,’

The feeling of guilt from Nietzsche’s account is characterized by holding oneself responsible not only for one's acquired obligations, but also for the flawed nature of one's living existence. Nietzsche appeals to this notion of indebtedness in his explanation of the development of guilt by referring to the perceived indebtedness towards ancestors and gods. This started when tribes thought that their existence had been reliant on the sacrifices and achievements from generations prior. This created a feeling of indebtedness amongst the tribes and as a result, pushed tribes to give reparations as forms of sacrifices. From this concept, Nietzsche explains further that being in debt to one’s creditor could be the outcome of many possibilities including torture, punishment and/or cruelty onto the person in debt. Making others endure pain as a result was joyful in the eyes of the creditor (the own being owed the loan, money, favor, etc.). Such joy according to Nietzsche balances out an unpaid

Nietzsche introduced an idea of philosophy that was more than simply a rational groundwork of existence or as the pursuit of an absolute truth. Instead, he suggested that philosophy is something to be respected as a personal interpretation of life and all its faculties (morality, existentialism etc.) and that was – for him - focused on life affirmation. Furthermore, this thinking implies that philosophy is not a be all and end all answer to life’s questions; rather, it is merely a