The Ethical Revolt of Slave Morality - Essay Example

of The Ethical Revolt of Slave Morality In Friedrich Nietzsche’s On The Genealogy of Morals, he explains how a slave revolt takes place in history, which is emphasized through the predominance of Christian morality. In this essay I shall explain how Nietzsche arrived at such a claim. I shall argue that despite Nietzsche’s criticisms on the dogmas of Christian morality, values, and tradition, he extols principles that contribute to the emancipation of the individual self. It is in this regard that I agree with Nietzsche when he claims that a slave revolt has taken place, for along with this revolt was the degradation of the human subject as powerless, and thus stagnating one’s potentials for self-actualization. However, in order to understand Nietzsche’s contentions, it is important to understand first, what dominated his thoughts. One of the elements which is central to Nietzsche’s thought is illustrated in his famous declaration that, “God is Dead!” (“Thus Spoke” 77). This affirms a complete rejection of metaphysical and religious truths as grounds for reality. To Nietzsche, the existence of God, the afterlife, immortality are nothing but imaginary causes. In his view, such are nothing but mere projections of one’s psychological desire for security and calculability in life. In line with this, Nietzsche believed that once the existence of God is unveiled as an illusion, then it follows that God could no longer be implemented as the foundation for human ethical conducts. This leads to the assertion that all morals will be founded on the subjective will of individual self. Thus, Nietzsche affirmed the individual self as the basis of all inquires and norms. Based on this argument, we are led to the question on how can the individual achieve its highest level of affirmation in a world without a divine providence? The answer to this query is found in the Nietzsche’s theory of the will to power. Nietzsche’s will to power is defined as “the drive to dominate the environment. This drive, so central is the will to power. This will to power is more than simply the will to survive. It is, rather, an inner drive to express a vigorous affirmation of all a person’s powers” (Stumpf 380). Given this, the will to power can be characterized as the inner propensity to dominate and assert superiority over one’s life. Furthermore, it allows individuals to reach their highest potentials through the overcoming of barriers and constraints. In this manner, individuals increase in power and vitality. However, Nietzsche cautioned us that if one decides to practice a certain code of ethics, the will to power gradually declines. By this, the individual weakens and suffers. Herein, Nietzsche accused Christianity for advocating virtues that undermine and destabilize one’s will to power. But prior to Nietzsche’s presentation of his criticisms towards the teachings of the Christian religion, he first explains how and why Christianity became the dominant religion in human society. Master Morality His explanation is found in his doctrine of the two-fold history of good and evil. This doctrine reveals that there were two types of moralities, which were practiced during the ancient Greeks. These are master morality or aristocratic morality and slave morality. For Nietzsche, Master morality is one that is founded upon the will to power. He claims: “What is good? – All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? – All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? – the feeling that power increases – that a resistance is overcome” (“Twilight of” 127). With this in mind, master morality advocates that “good” is identified to that which is powerful and noble. On the other hand, “evil” is linked to weakness and cowardice. In line with this, In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche describes the temperament of the noblemen. To begin with, Nietzsche says, “The noble type of man feels himself to be the determiner of values, he does not need to be approved of, he judges ‘what harms me is harmful in itself’, he knows himself to be that which in general first accords honour to things, he creates values” (“Beyond Good” 195). Loosely speaking, noblemen are those who determine their morals according to their own personal standards. They are those who are highly individualistic. They stand up for their own beliefs regardless of what other people say. Nietzsche also writes, “the noble human being too aids the unfortunate but not, or almost not, from pity, but more from an urge begotten by the superfluity of power” (“Beyond Good” 195-196). In his view, noble individuals practice generosity but not out of pity but out of an excess of riches. Alongside these traits conveys that: “The noble human being honours in himself the man of power, also the man who has power over himself, who understands how to speak and how to keep silent, who enjoys practicing severity and harshness upon himself and feels reverence for all that is severe and hard” (“Beyond Good” 196). This trait signifies two assertions: First, noble individuals are those who have mastery over themselves. They are able to harness control over both their intellectual propensities and passionate drives. And secondly, noblemen are those who thrive on challenges, risks and exposure to forms of novelties in life. On the other hand, we have slave morality. Slave Morality On the other hand, the lowest class of society, i.e. the slaves, practices slave morality. Nietzsche described this type of morality as “essentially the morality of utility” (“Beyond Good” 197) This connotes slave morality is one that advocates virtues which are beneficial to the existence of sufferers. Some of these virtues assume the form of pity, compassion, honesty, humility and other related Christian values. Moreover, this type of morality reveres weakness as a virtue while nobility and strength as vices. Herein is where the slave revolt comes into light. According to Nietzsche, master morality was the dominant code of ethics during the ancient period of humanity. But, as time progressed there occurred a revolt or reversal of values. This was triggered by the resentment of the slaves on the noblemen. This enabled the slaves to destabilize the supremacy of the noble class through forms of upheavals and an imposition of values. Through their success, the slaves implemented their own morality as virtues and branded the standards of master morality as evils. As Nietzsche claims: “Who is really evil according to the meaning of the morality of resentment? In all sternness let it be answered thus: just the good man of the other morality, just the aristocrat, the powerful one, the one who rules, but who is distorted by the venomous eye of resentfulness…” (“The Genealogy” 22). After several centuries, slave morality gradually became the moral and ethical basis of Christianity. Notwithstanding this, Nietzsche asserted that Christianity is a decadent religion. It is one that advocates virtues that promotes forms of powerlessness and self-sacrifice in the individual. To strengthen his assertion, Nietzsche provided an array of criticisms on the teachings of Christianity. Here are a few to consider. First, he (“Twilight of” 130) declared, “Pity stands in antithesis to the tonic emotions which enhance the energy of the feeling of life: it has a depressive effect. One loses force when one pities.” In other words, Nietzsche cautions that pity is hazardous to human existence because it entails a depressive effect, which renders one powerless. This, Nietzsche asserts, the slave revolt upheld. Second, he condemned the maxim, “Love thy enemies” for the reason that it discriminates against the natural instincts of the human being. From his perspective, the denial of one’s natural instincts shall relegate the individual self to a state of martyrdom. Stumpf illuminates Nietzsche’s criticism on the said maxim: “Christianity contradicts nature when it requires us to love our enemies, for Nature’s injunction is to hate your enemy” (382). In line with this, Nietzsche contends that a person’s reverence for God not only debases one’s instincts, but it also ushers an inadvertent submission to an imaginary cause. To his view, this ushers a renunciation of both the mundane life and one’s selfhood. Last, Nietzsche criticized Christianity for aligning itself with the weak and degrading qualities of nobility, strength, selfishness and forms of domination. He boldly declares, “I consider life itself instinct for growth, for continuance, for accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking there is decline” (Nietzsche, “Twilight of” 129). Here, Nietzsche presumed that life is essentially bestowed with an amalgamation of challenges, ordeals, suffering and the quests for domination. With that, he assumed that the virtues of Christianity as guides to survival will only result in martyrdom and a stagnation of one’s potentials for self-actualization. Therefore, Nietzsche insisted that the expression of the will to power is the most viable way to survival and the perseverance in this life. Given his criticisms, Nietzsche encourages a complete liberation from the dogmas of the Christian religion, i.e. from the principles upheld by the slave revolt. This shall allow individuals to restore both faith in themselves and their unique potentials. In his view (“Twilight of” 199), this can be achieved through a revaluation of all morals. This is a process, which necessitates a shift from the revolt of slave morality to the morality of the noble aristocrats, that is, master morality. This process can be actualized through an acute awareness of the contradictions and detrimental repercussions that are revealed in the doctrines of Christianity. Once these contradictions and repercussions are brought to light, individuals shall free themselves from their adherence to slave morality and will repossess the values of master morality. Analysis and Conclusion Based on the aforementioned analysis, I personally agree with Nietzsche that a reversal of morals and values has thus taken place due to the influence of Christian dogma. For, despite his criticisms on the dogmas of organized religion and human tradition, Nietzsche is not in favor of advocating forms of lawlessness and arbitrary behavior as viable modes of human conduct. He claims that an authentic life entails the affirmation of the individual. Through this, Nietzsche contends that humans must become highly reflective of the possible outcomes of their desired course of action. Such act of cognition shall facilitate both prudent and moral conduct. In this manner, the individual can properly gauge himself or herself in addressing the demands of a given situation in life. In addition, he or she can successfully face squarely the consequences of his or her decisions. Aside from this, Nietzsche extols principles that contribute to the emancipation of the individual self. To start with, he encourages us to become resolute in our own subjective convictions and potentials regardless of what traditional society dictates. By this, we shall find value in being unique individualized persons. In line with this, he emphasizes on individual creativity and diverse modes of self-actualization. To his view, such can lead to the acquisition of a deeper and holistic understanding of the real world. However, it is important to keep in mind that Nietzsche is not in favor of nullifying the approaches of human tradition. He points out that these approaches are not the only avenues in order to understand reality. Lastly, Nietzsche argues that the highest level of self-affirmation can be procured by transcending the overriding social tensions, such as Christianity, in contemporary society. This can be actualized through a complete affirmation of these dilemmas as inescapable facts of the human condition, and as necessary conditions for self-progress. Consequently, one gradually secures self-empowerment. It is in this regard that I agree and support Nietzsche’s advocacy. For despite its criticism towards Christianity, it nevertheless aims for some thing higher, something that will therefore empower the individual for what he or she is worth. Works Cited Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Philosophy: History and Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Print. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Books, 1990. Print. ---. The Genealogy of Morals. Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003. Print. ---. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Trans. Graham Parkes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. ---. Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Books, 1968. Print. Read More