Nietzsches Criticisms on Morality - Essay Example

? Nietzsche’s Criticisms on Morality Morality is an issue that is critical to the survival of the human race. It is a fundamental factor that lays the groundwork for the co-existence of mortals in the society at large. Philosophers have embraced the question of the true nature of morality and whether or not it can be made universal. Notably, people have different perceptions concerning various situations. It is the interpretation of things that determines how a person responds and thus the basis of morality in the society.  Friedrich Nietzsche poses the idea that our present morality evolved from ancient time. According to him they were a dominant class that he calls “masters” who created a moral code that the subordinates in the society had to follow (Danto, 1994). Master morality is the morality of the strong willed. To those who practice master morality, the basic principle is that what is good is helpful and that which is bad is harmful. In the ancient times, the value or otherwise of an action was determined by its consequences. This basically implies that morality does not exist per se but rather, there are only moral interpretations of situations and occurrences. According to Nietzsche, the essence of morality is nobility. For the strong willed in the society that which is good is noble and powerful while the bad is weak, timid and cowardly. For the Master morality, the defining factor is the idea of what is good and later the nature of bad is defined as that which is not good. In master morality, open mindedness courage and an accurate sense of self worth are attributes that are highly valued. Hence, masters are creators of morality and master morality is self-determinant (Hooker, 2000). Master morality embodies living life to the fullest a completely natural human functioning. It has little concern for the outside and as such, lives a life free from external restrictions. Masters affirm themselves from the onset and then enforce their morality to everyone below them. Essentially, masters are more concerned about that which their self deems right. The other issues that are nonrelated are considered secondary and insignificant. In a way, the masters define what they want and everything else that is not aligned to their perspective and beliefs is non consequential. The ideals of the society and other people do not affect their morality. In fact, the superior people are not afraid to express their will to power. They are determined to let their self serving morality be the one that the others follow. Master morality does not let the will of the herds to determine their lifestyle and moral direction. On the contrary, these superior people consider the values of other people to be of little or no significance and their sole objective is to advance their self interests. Those who follow master morality subscribe to their self defined rules and are not bound by the values of the society or institutions. Thus, it is imperative that the masters craft their own reality and morality. Nietzsche argues that those who follow the master morality are the ones who determine the development of human race to higher levels. Even from the historical background, men who have had the greatest impact in the history of mankind are the strong-willed. The timid and weak simply do not have the capacity to make things happen. Transformation and authority requires a higher degree of self worth and belief in order to convince the followers (Ridley, 1998). Suffice to say, Nietzsche paints those who follow master morality as stiff necked people with a high sense of self imposed supremacy. They do not have room for reason as they deem their ideas to be the most superior of all. The masters are close minded and they do not have room to change their set beliefs. He further argues that these superior people do not even belief that new knowledge can make them revise their previous positions. Morality for the masters is a personal issue rather than a communal beliefs system. This means that those who practice master morality consider themselves the creators and determinants of their own morals. Essentially, they consider that their accountability is with themselves and outside factors are insignificant. Thus, they believe that it is their version of morality that is the best for the entire society. As such, the society is does not merely exist for itself but rather for the sake of the masters of morality. Nietzsche observes that the driving force of the masters of morality is that their will to power is the will to life (Williams, 1972). In as much as these beliefs of those who follow master morality border on spiteful arrogance, history has always proven them right. The other type of morality that Nietzsche speaks about is slave morality. This is the direct opposite of master morality. Nietzsche refers to slave morality as kind of “herd” morality. The choice of the word “herd” is informed by the fact that human beings have always lived as a group rather that as solitary creatures. This is fundamentally true considering the fact that the connotations of “family”, “tribe”, “religion” and many others have existed since ancient times. These groupings have been responsible in shaping a coherent version of communal of values that have been accepted as morals. He further argues that the need to submit to the expectations of the society has grown to become innate. Hence, those who seek to be approved of by the society are accepting slave morality (Nietzsche, 1977). The virtues of slave morality are those that are deemed useful to the weak and powerless in the society. In essence, these people believe in sympathy, equality and kindness. To them, morality is about being nice and good to all people at all times. This implies that all effort has to be made to ensure that they do not wrong anyone by their actions or inactions. The reality is that they become prisoners of other people’s values that have been adopted by the society. The definition of good that they ascribe to is not set by themselves. On the contrary, they almost blindly follow what is adopted in the society without the knowledge that these values were also set by an individual at a certain point. The blanket will to do well in the society does not allow for the inoculation of personal conviction to influence their decisions. Like robots, they just follow what the society has set forth. Thus, they create the impression that what is good to everybody is good for them as well. Slave morality justifies its existence based on the existence of others. It succumbs to the fundamental believe that for an individual to exist, the society or community has to exist first. Thus, slave morality owes its ideologies to others first. It is akin to sacrificing oneself for the general good of everybody. In fact, if everyone ascribed to slave morality, then the human society would become one cohesive and collective society. The person who follows slave morality is bound to hold in high regard the meek and the powerless. This is the hallmark of vanity that is self evident among the proponents of slave morality. They yearn for a good impression on others, yet incapable of setting their own values. It should be noted that a man of substance has to set his own value otherwise he will be considered valueless. The slave morality advocates for meekness and blending in. The act of trying to stand out and be noticed is frowned upon. Their desire to be praised by the society is thus borne out of the inferiority complex given the fact that they cannot form their own values. The basis of slave morality is an inversion of values. Under this context, those who suffer are good. Also, the powerless and the lowly members of the society are considered to be the best people in the society. This is in regards to the fact that the lowly people may be predated upon by the elite in the society and hence they should be protected. In this sense, negation of bad deeds is a good thing both for an individual as well as the society in general. Yet this goes against the basics of logical reasoning that strength has to show strength. Hence, just as the weak show weakness, the strong will have to show their strength. As Nietzsche explains, those with the slave moralities consider the society as an arena of equals and hence all people should be treated as such. In situations where the poor and the powerless are not treated in a way that is deemed fair, slave morality takes upon itself to remedy and intervene on their behalf. Such obligations for others are the foundations of slave morality where the interests of others especially the weak and powerless are supposed to come first. Slave morality is based on an impotent hatred for the powerful and influential in the society. Essentially, the main enemies of those who profess slave morality are the elite and most successful members of the society. As Nietzsche puts it, the slave morality has a lot of resentment for the masters in the society (Blanton, 2005). This implies that the slave mentality considers the powerful to be the root cause of the problems that the poor and weak face. Such thoughts can only be considered naive since every person has a chance to decide their fate in life. Nietzsche argues that the herd instinct of the masses is one of the factors that pull mankind behind. In fact, he bluntly points out that it is the underprivileged members of the society that illustrate moral decadence. According to him, good moral values cannot be practiced with the herd mentality of the masses. Surely, it is unfeasible for one to imagine that the whole world would do “good” if the slave morality had its way. The slave morality’s hatred on the powerful is based on the fact that the powerful have things that the majority of the population only dreams of. So, the slave morality assumes that since the majority cannot have what the powerful have, then the powerful people are wrong. Therefore, it is appropriate for them to hate the powerful. The logic behind the reasoning slave morality as Nietzsche puts it is that they are at war with those who do not subscribe to the morals of the community. Thus, in attempting to justify their morality, the “herds” end up doing what is cannot be termed as good moral values. The hesitancy of the slave morality movement to embrace individuality as a positive aspect of humankind is an action that fails to celebrate the capabilities of men. All people were created in a unique and singular manner. Therefore, it is absurd to expect all human beings to have the same beliefs and values. It is imperative to note that human beings are endowed with the ability to think and act independently. As Nietzsche points out, right or wrong is basically a personal opinion of something (Nietzsche, 1998). This means that there is nothing that can be described as universally “good” or “bad”. The way human beings were created in a unique way and thus they think differently. Therefore, even if people observe the same behavior or phenomenon, their interpretations are bound to be different. The basis of slave morality is the belief that all people are equal and hence everybody should behave in the same manner. I agree with Nietzsche that the proponents of slave morality are in the captivity of resentment, eternally feeling bad about what they cannot have. Therefore, their morality is not based on what their core desire is. On the contrary, the slave morality demonizes that which they cannot have and those that are extraordinary. They feel that the master morality is unfairly imposed on them. Slave morality is based on communal mediocrity. The people who advocate slave morality are afraid of going for what they believe and choose to follow what has been set by others as the values of the community. Basically, if you are not a leader then you are follower. The herd mentality is based on the fact that there are set rules and values which have to be followed. Personal initiative is ignored and these people resign to fate. Such actions are bound to make a person dependent on the ideas of other people. Yet, one of the most important characteristic of a human being is the ability to think in an independent and objective manner. This begs the question on why a person endowed with brains chooses not to use them. The resignation to follow the directions and values set by others blindly is the epitome of mediocrity. Lacking mental capacity is one thing but failing to use personal judgment is an insult to naturally given abilities to a human being. Perhaps one of the reasons why slave morality is prevalent in the society is because of fear. Fear is a vital factor in analyzing the issue of morality. For instance, the fear of death can drive human beings to various beliefs. Nietzsche notes that Christians are perhaps the greatest embodiment of slave morality (Lomax, 2003). He argues that most of the human beings are afraid of death and thereafter. Therefore, the fear of death makes some Christians to blindly subscribe to the values that supposedly guarantee them life after death. Also, it is fear of taking responsibility that makes people to avoid making independent choices on what they believe is right. The need to blend in and remain inconspicuous as possible has been cultivated in most people. In essence, a person who believes in something invariably has to stand for it and defend it physically if need be. Those who advocate for slave morality lack the conviction to stand for what they believe in. instead, they choose to follow the already established values so that they are not put to the task of explaining their positions. On the other hand, the master mentality is oriented towards setting independent values and sticking by them, no matter the opposition. The epitome of achievement for those who practice master morality is the ability to articulate their self devised values to others and gain followers in the process. They are not afraid of being different and they consider their thought process to be supreme. The key differentiating factor between master morality and slave morality is the capability to take responsibility for what one believes in. Notably, the majority of people with little ambition believe that the beauty of life lies in simplicity. They believe that a person should do “good” in the society and create minimum disturbance to the status quo. Surely, these are thoughts of minions whose role in the world is to merely exist. Master morality is what defines super achievers and the highly successful people in the society. Basically, a man’s worth begins with the value that one sets upon himself. It is improbable that one can be treated as a king if he does not behave as one. Image is all about perceptions. Therefore, if one behaves as part of a herd the masses will treat him or her as search. But those who advocate for master morality have the knowledge that the society will always bend to the whims of the few who dare to set precedence and set independent values. Great historical leaders have been the kind of people who articulate what they believe in and work towards attaining. It should be noted that there will always be opposition to ideas no matter how appealing they may be. Master morality recognizes this fact and instead of being discouraged by the opposition, superior people consider what they do not like as secondary and insignificant. The ability to focus on what they want rather than what they do not want is one of the reasons why master morality enables some people to attain high levels of personal fulfillment. Slave morality disdains authority and power. It simply projects a negative impression of powerful and strong people in the society. I believe that Nietzsche is right in claiming that the reason why slave morality has a potent dislike for the powerful is due to their inability to change what is unpleasant to them. Slave morality recognizes that indeed, there are problems in the society. However, it lacks the initiative and will power to muscle the needed effort so as change the situations. Due to this lack of capacity and ability, slave morality resorts to shifting the blame to those who have found a way to change things to suit their personal desires. They believe that those who are in control have used unfair means to achieve their authority. This eventually leads to resentment that is built on broken hopes and dreams are not achievable. The apportioning of blame to the authority and the powerful is wrong since every person ha the capacity and ability to follow their self defined values. Slave morality is practically hypocrisy. The people who practice slave morality have a weakness in their characters. Nietzsche explains that slave mentality is a cognizant of will power and authority (Krell, 1996). Given a chance, those that advocate for slave morality will not miss the opportunity to go for positions of power and influence in the society. However due to their situation in which they lack authority and power, slave morality condemns these things and makes them look evil. This is a clear indication of hypocrisy on the part of the slave morality based on their unfulfilled expectations. The case of slave morality is similar to a situation where workers hate their boss but deep down, they long for a chance to become bosses themselves. The critical factor here is that it is inappropriate to pretend to hate something due to the sole reason that you cannot have it. The root cause of hypocrisy from the people who advocate for slave morality is their lack of strong conviction to implement personal values. It can be argued that morality is a continuum rather than a single event and character cast in stone. Human interactions occur in various categories and situations thus it is more likely that people will adopt different moralities based on the current circumstances that they are in. Therefore, it is evident that Nietzsche’s argument that a person can practice only one of the two moralities is flawed (Leiter, 2000). In essence, life is a combination of several factors and it is not possible to strictly practice only slave morality or master morality. Nietzsche is not convincing that a person can only be either of slave morality or master morality. A case in point is that some circumstances call for practicing slave morality while others demand for master morality. Even a person who is highly accomplished in master morality does have to subscribe to the values of those that are above him. In this context, a person may project the image of master morality to the majority of the people but be compelled to project the impression of slave morality to those few people above him. The notion that morality is a personal perception is a generalization that cannot be fully substantiated by Nietzsche. A critical evaluation of the society shows that indeed, there are values that can be considered as universally “good”. Although the circumstances and applications may differ, the bottom line is that a civilized society has to have collectively binding values to hold them together. Otherwise, if every person was left to his or her own devices the world would degenerate into complete anarchy (Leiter, 2000). Therefore, it can be argued that a blend of both slave morality and master morality are necessary for the existence of the society. It should be noted that slave morality is in a conflict with master morality and considers it a foe. The reason is that the slave morality proponents feel that the master morality is unjust and unfair in a society that should be equal. However, both master morality and slave morality are essential to ensure development and cohesiveness in the society. Master morality is essential to offer the general vision and direction that is important to facilitate the development of mankind. On the other hand, slave morality is requires so as to rally people behind a cause so that to create total impact in the entire society. Bibliography Blanton, B. 2005. Beyond good and evil: The eternal split second sound light being. National Book Network, London Danto, Arthur C. 1994. “Some Remarks on The Genealogy of Morals” in Nietzsche, Genealogy, Morality: Essays on The Genealogy of Morals, ed. Richard Schact (University of California Press) Hooker, Brad. 2000. Ideal Code, Real World. Oxford University Press, Oxford Kymlicka, Will. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy, An Introduction, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Krell, D. F. 1996. Nietzsche: a novel. Albany, State University of New York Press. Leiter, Brian. 2002. Nietzsche on Morality . Routledge Philosophy Guidebooks, London. Leiter, B. 2002. Philosophy GuideBook to Nietzsche on Morality. Routlidge. London Lomax, J. 2003. The paradox of philosophic education: Nietzsche’s new nobility and the eternal recurrence in good and beyond. Lexington Books, New York Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1998. On The Genealogy of Morality, translated by Maudemarie Clark and Alan J. Swenson. Hackett Publishing Company, New York. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1977. A Nietzsche Reader, selected and translated by R.J. Hollingdale. Penguin Classics, New York. Ridley, A. 1998. Nietzsche’ conscience:six characterstudies from the geanealogy. Cornwell University Press, Cornwell. Williams, Bernard. 1972. Morality. Cambridge University Press, Canto. Read More