Nietzsche Master Morality And Slave Morality

2241 Words5 Pages

This piece of work will try to find the answer to the question ‘In Nietzsche’s first essay in the Genealogy of Morals, does he give a clear idea of what good and bad truly are, what they are based on and what his opinion of those ideas is’. It will give a more simplistic overview of his first essay, it will also go into greater detail of what he claims good and bad truly are, and finally look at what he is trying to prove with this argument.

Nietzsche introduces the differences between what he names later in his first essay the "master morality" and "slave morality." The first master morality is the ideas of the nobles, including solders and other ruling classes. This he says is power deciding what good and bad is they see the qualities they …show more content…

He seems to be doing the very same thing he accuses them of doing, In that he seems to praise the master and condemn the slave classes, but with one key difference. He does critique the two different view on morality and does seem to focus and talk more harshly about the slave morality, but he does not do so after picking a side of the two morality’s, he does not base his judgements upon his own personal likes and dislikes it seems but he does look at the person that each morality would mould and create. In this he sees that the save morality become a very damaging concept. Being driven and caught up in the past and focused upon the hatred and resentment, it means the focus of those in the slave morality become less of everything that makes us human, such things as creativity or we become so deeply pulled into the mind set of hate and resentment that we can no longer see a way out of it and in turn become less motivated, it would create a band of people who care not for improving themselves or their situation, but people who sit and simmer in the ideals of hate and resentment. This is how Nietzsche separates how he talks about and condemns the slave morality from how the past biased psychologists looked upon the origins or …show more content…

In this he seems to take a physiological view of why and how people tend to look upon and think of ideals that way, instead of the more philosophical view of if I follow this path will it end up at the right and logical answer or, does the premise lead to a logical conclusion. This makes it hard to see what evidence Nietzsche can put behind his arguments because as stated above he bases then of people and thought trains rather than logic. He does seem to define what his view of good and bad is and where the ideas were born from, and what the key ideas were in forming said ideals. He seem to be trying to put forward the case that there is no real good or bad and that they are just the product of the ideas and needs of men, he puts this most clearly in his argument of the slave morality and when he brings it back to the idea that it is both helpful in creating and strengthened by the Christian religion. So over all Nietzsche does put forward what he see as a clear view on what good and bad are and also makes clear his opinion on them which simply is, they are products of human wants and a need to justify how

Open Document