Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche - Essay Example

Paradox in Modern Values for Nietzsche: The Case of Religion Friedrich Nietzsche, in his genealogy of morals, presents a different perspective on the history of morality and the state of present-day morals. In regarding religion as both the weakest and most influential force in terms of morality, he puts forth previously unheard of ideas about both nobility and the lower classes. In this essay, I examine Nietzsche’s purpose in creating a genealogy of morals, his definitions of the “master” and “slave” moralities, and his argument against the overwhelmingly religious society of the present day. I then look at his views on how society should be changed for the better and examine the similarities between his view and the views of the religious groups that he so desperately argues against The mission of Friedrich Nietzsche, in his seminal Genealogy of Morals, is essentially a cross-examination of modern society and culture’s deepest-held values, such that one is able to conclude if these values are true or not. Additionally, Nietzsche seeks to answer the question of why society itself has arrived at the determination that these expressed values are true. Nietzsche believes this undertaking is required by English psychologists—the scientists or philosophers who endeavor “to arrive at a history of the origin of morality”, and are not strictly enamored with the pure historical study of morality (Nietzsche, Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morality and Other Writings: Revised Student Edition, 1994). Too often, these individuals assume that human beings are naturally evil and culture mends their behavior. This is what Nietzsche describes as a profound, primordial piece of humanity that ought to be revealed such that we, the scientists and the philosophers, comprehend man’s character. Nietzsche believes this is wrong; he therefore attempts to generate a newer description of the history of morality. The key aspect of this genealogy is the creation of two distinct types of morality: the master morality and the slave morality. From these two distinct types of morality, the paradox in Nietzsche’s historical and natural account of morality seems to emerge. The master morality is that which is developed by those who are members of the higher class, which Nietzsche refers to as nobility. It is with this nobility that he thinks the concept of good first originated – seeing as they were the people in the position of power, they were able to determine what was “good” and what was not. Naturally, they would classify their own actions as “good”. Hence, in master morality, “good” is defined as noble, high, strong, and powerful. In contrast, the definition of “bad” would be the exact opposite – common, plebian, low and simple. Effectively, “bad” is the absence of “good”. Nietzsche provides examples of the similarity of words to prove his point – one of these examples is the similarity between the German word for “bad” (schlecht) and the word for “simple” (schlicht). This commonality in words represents the commonality of ideas, showing that the concept “bad” can be traced back to simplicity. This concept of morality is one that exemplifies the value of individualism, life-affirmation, honesty, health, fearsomeness. However, the master morality is superficial and inherently violent, hence not something that should necessarily be aspired to. Given the presence of the master morality, the other side of Nietzsche’s morality coin has to exist – what he refers to as slave morality. This morality was created by those lower than nobility, namely the priestly caste – it is at this point that we are first introduced to Nietzsche’s views on religion and morality in religion. The priestly caste by nature is weak and impotent, hence unable to exact any kind of revenge or display any power over others. It is because of this weakness that the so-called slaves develop a hatred for the nobility who has the power to take revenge or exhibit their superiority. The slaves (aka men of resentment) describe the powerful nobility as “evil”, a much harsher and pointed term than “bad”. This is the first step in creating slave morality. Seeing themselves as being the least like that which they termed evil, the slaves determined their actions must be good. With this determination in mind, the characteristics of the slaves, namely weakness, were also deemed “good”. (Misperception of weakness is one of Nietzsche’s main problems with the slave morality. This misperception includes seeing the inability for revenge as the unwillingness for revenge or forgiveness, taking their misery as a sign of being chosen and tested by God, and thinking that they are better than and better off than the mighty because in the coming kingdom of God, the weak will be strong and the strong will be weak.) Hence, this concept of morality praises the value of overall negativity, hypocrisy, life-denial, sickness, and the herd mentality. From this distinction between the two types of moralities, Nietzsche goes on to say that the slave morality is the one that is dominant in present day society due to the slave revolt in morality that was spearheaded by the Jews in the times of the Roman Empire (Nietzsche, Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morality and Other Writings: Revised Student Edition, 1994). This slave revolt is the cause of many of values that are seen as valuable in modern society, such as peace and forgiveness. This slave revolt was not necessarily a good thing—in bringing about the rise of the normal common man, it also dooms man to this normalcy. Nietzsche thinks that this diminution and leveling represents the greatest danger to society. Nobody has the desire for greatness due to their complacency in regards to their social status and position in life; hence people will continue to get weaker and weaker, all the while regarding themselves as becoming “better” people in an increasingly “better” society. This in itself is the problem with the triumph of slave morality—people are comfortable with weakness and thus will never have the will to change their lifestyle and accomplish true greatness (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, 2009). Throughout this dissertation, Nietzsche’s views in regard to religion and religious groups become blatantly clear. While the triumph of the priestly slave morality certainly made things more interesting, it destroyed man’s ability to achieve greatness. He effectively treats the religious people and slaves synonymously, so in his entire argument against the slave morality, he is arguing against the common thought process of religious leaders and religious groups in general. He argues that those who believe in god and the coming kingdom of god are essentially devaluing both human life and the value of the world itself. Those who believe in god must inherently feel indebted to this god, due to the fact that it was god who created humans and gave us our current status on earth. Additionally, the fact that god had to manifest itself in human form and essentially kill itself in order to relieve mankind of their sins breeds the idea of the inferiority of mankind – in essence, life-denial. This life-denial is also seen in Buddhism and Sufism, where nihilistic ideals – becoming part of nothingness as the attainment of the highest possible state of being and closeness to god – run rampant. Nietzsche thinks that these views are entirely unproductive and basely devaluations of human life (Morrison, 1999). Despite this kind of life-denial that Nietzsche thinks is at the root of all religious belief, he himself paints the picture of a pseudo-messianic figure when referencing the coming of the anti-nihilist Antichrist. This “redeeming man of great love and contempt, the creative spirit whose compelling strength will not let him rest in any aloofness” will effectively bring about a new social order, overthrowing the current dominance of slave morality. However, this viewpoint brings about an obvious question—how does this differ from the life-denial that Nietzsche himself disproves of? The answer is simple – it doesn’t. A messiah is one who by nature comes to deliver a new way of thinking and overthrow the current balance of power, aka the exact type of person that Nietzsche wants and expects to bring about the end of slave morality. Additionally, that this new society will be brought about by the “Antichrist” is effectively the same thing as the coming kingdom of god seen in Christian tradition—a new social order. Both of these concepts carry the same life-denial baggage of the religious claims, without the religious belief behind them. The desire for a better man somewhat implies that man today is in some shape or form inadequate, while the social change that this man brings implies the sub-par status of today’s world (Boeree, 2003). These two desires represent devaluations of both human life and the world as a whole, the same devaluation which Nietzsche thinks is the least productive and most harmful part of slave morality. In conclusion, Nietzsche’s dislike and disapproval of religion is in a sense paradoxical, due to his own pseudo-messianic desire for a better man. The master and slave moralities play an important role in this desire, given the implications that each of these have on modern society, most of all the comfort in weakness that the slave morality brought about in the slave revolt. Simply speaking, his entire argument against religion can be tossed out and regarded as hypocritical given his own views on society and the world today. Works Cited Boeree, C. G. (2003). Selection from Thus Spake Zarathustra, part four. Retrieved 2010, from Shippensburg University: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/zarathustra.html Morrison, R. G. (1999). Nietzsche and Buddhism: A Study in Nihilism and Ironic Affinities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, F. (1994). Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morality and Other Writings: Revised Student Edition. (C. Diethe, Trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nietzsche, F. (2009). Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. Read More