The second dimension that Nietzsche discusses is morality relating to slaves or priests, and this primarily deals with Jewish beliefs. This dimension believes that priests loath warriors and call their desire for power an evil act, and they believe that their own poverty or simple state is called good. These two beliefs are called slave and master morality. Slave morality seems to be much more refined as compared to master morality and it is driven by a feeling of anger or resentment. It was born of Christianity as Christian love is due to hatred and therefore it is in accordance with slave morality and its derivation from ‘ressentiment.’ (Nietzsche and Kaufmann) Even though slave morality is interesting and more complex as well to understand as compared to master morality and their self-assuredness, Nietzsche is apprehensive that it makes mankind a mediocre race and people who have generally an inherent perception of slave morality would like to prefer comfort and security over risk and conquest over the world. The priests believes in the slave morality and they believe that it saves them from evil and other perils of the afterlife, and the master morality will distract people from changing themselves for the better and making their present a better situation to live in. Most modern humans also perceive the slave morality in this way and act this way. Nietzsche also believes that there is a difference between the two kinds of morality be it good/bad or good/evil by giving the relevant example of lamb and bird of prey. The lamb would believe that the bird of prey is evil since it kills and that they themselves are good because they don’t kill. However, these statements become useless in the event that God has made them in such a way that they cannot kill; and not because of any moral account but simply because they are unable to, they don’t know what they would be capable of if they would be able to kill. Birds of prey similarly cannot be highlighted as wrong doers and evil simply because they are built in a way that they are to kill. If the deed, which is killing could be separated from the being that kills because it was made that way, then only could be condemn these birds for their deeds. Nietzsche also goes on to argue that there are instances when there is a deed, but no doer and then you cannot blame anyone. Such as lightning cannot be removed from the flash and seen independently and hence the fact that we view that the doer is distinct from his act is simply something we view because of society and its prejudices. Master morality is what the aspiration is so to say, slave morality is prevalent and not desirable. Nietzsche also believes that guilt originally didn’t have any moral aspects in it, and it was simply like a debt. A person who owed something to someone was in debt and guilty of it, and he owed a creditor some sum. Therefore a creditor could take advantage of that and could even make the debtor pay at any time or take penalties. This wasn’t to punish the debtor and make him feel bad about himself, but this was only for the creditor’s mirth and pleasure. Therefore punishment was like a paradox; it was cruel for the debtor and yet cheerful for the creditor and it was supposed to have been forgotten afterwards without any grudge from any party. Law and regulation is like a creditor in a society; if someone goes against the law then this means that they have broken and harmed society and they can be punished for this mistake. (Nietzsche and Kaufmann) Justice believes however that people don’t have that power to punish good or bad or evil and
The Genealogy of Morality believes that there are two different moral codes in the world that are good and evil and good and bad…
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.
Thus, it has veered away from what it was to actually live and how it failed to represent the virtues of life, favoring a morality which was for the meek, humble, and lowly. It created a morality of the herd. This brings us to how Nietzsche came up with the two different types of moralities.
“Good-bad identifies a hierarchy of people, the noble masters or aristocracy and the common people” (Lacewing, n.d.). Master morality is also known as noble morality and it enhances ‘good’ which promotes glorious and proud mind. Master morality always denotes persons, not their actions and therefore, “good” and “bad” are corresponding to “noble” and despicable” in that order.
Indeed, in Section 10 of his First Treatise on the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche brings the term “ressentiment” to the reader’s attention. As one might guess, the term is originally French but is a cognate with English in that it means “resentment”.
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.
Moreover, are we also to say that transparency, honesty, and sincerity are always good virtues and would always produce good effects? Contrary to popular opinion, politicians’ and lawyers’ have a role to fulfill and therefore their lies, deception, aggression, bias or secrecy can actually be excused because of the practical value of these acts and because the demands of virtue are quite difficult to qualify.
These disabilities expected by the mainstream population to be existing in the characters and performances of the individuals belonging to the minority or downtrodden groups and communities are partly the outcome of the financial position, appearance and social statuses maintained by the minority and deprived groups.
Any agreeable image that they present to the people becomes their ticket to luring their constituents into believing that they, indeed, are honorable public servants. Whatever good reputation they have earned gives them the advantage of being able to, somehow, influence or manipulate the citizens’ thinking and help them stay in their positions.
However, I do know that I will do my best to achieve what realistic goals I can set for myself or those that have been set by professionals in my field of study as moral guidelines.
In fact, I feel that those