In The Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche illustrates two understandings of the difference between good and bad, that of the noble vs. despicable and that of good vs. evil. This is an important difference, and it is one which reflects the division in society between have and have-nots, or masters and slaves.
While both are moral distinctions, they are based on different levels and frameworks. Where the distinction between noble and despicable indicates the general expectation of the societal perspective, the distinction between good and evil refers to a level beyond that, of a higher, natural principle usually based in God or religion. Nietzsche put it this way: This “bad" of aristocratic origin and that “evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied
Nietzsche thought nobility was to see one’s self as the center and origin of value. He believed that people in power force common people into bidding their will, and those in charge are separated based on good or bad measures of their value. The rulers, or people in charge have master morality, the people who do their bidding have slave morality. Slave morality is how common people make their lives more bearable by using Christian ethics such as kindness and sympathy.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a brilliant and outspoken man who uses ideas of what he believe in what life is about. He did not believe in what is right and wrong because if who opposed the power. Nietzsche was against Democracy because how they depend on other people to make some different or change, while Nietzsche believe they should of just pick the ones that were gifted and talent to choose what to change. Nietzsche also does not believe in Aristocracy because how they depend on an individual person to create the rules or change those benefits for him. As you see Nietzsche did not like how they depend on one person to decide instead of each person to decide for himself for their own benefits.
People from different backgrounds and circumstances in history bend morality's meaning, making it cater to the norms of their society. For example, the concept of what is "good" in the ancient Greek culture meant aristocratic, noble, powerful, wealthy, pure, but not in modern era. Meaning, in the past the term “good” was not applied to a kind of act that someone did but rather applied to the kind of person and background they had. Nietzsche’s project was to help expand one’s understanding by re-examining morality through genealogy of morality; helping one to be more aware of a potential confusion in moral thinking. He feels that the current values and concepts that have been instilled into a society are a reversal of the truth, forcing him to believe that one’s moral systems had to have been created within society.
“On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” is an unfinished work written by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1873. In this work, Nietzsche takes an approach to explaining the truth in a way that we would all find very unusual, but that is merely the Nietzsche way. In this essay I will analyze how Nietzsche views the truth, as explained in “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”
The first morality Nietzsche writes about is the master morality. Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. The people that fall under the category of master morality typically think of themselves as "the good,"which is defined as
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
Friederich Nietzsche suggests an answer to these problems. In Beyond Good and Evil, one of his attempts to sum up his thought--indeed, throughout his philosophical work, as far as I can tell, Nietzsche describe...
Both Freud and Nietzsche presented almost the same interpretations of human nature and the society they lived in. Though, the societies in which they lived in were different. Freud and Nietzsche’s thoughts may be similar, but human nature constantly changes. Freud is more aware, he examines into the past to find reasons that make life more civilized, however Nietzsche is more doubtful, he sees that humans should be led by a hero.
Nietzsche's master-slave morality describes the way in which moral norms shifted through the through eras, from pre-scocratic times to the modern age founded upon Christian and Jewish beliefs. During pre-socratic times, value was dominated and enacted by the master class, who saw themselves and what they did as good. Value was defined along their terms of good- what was good for the master class was itself good. This notion of value was designed along the lines of nobility and purity, which included traits such as courage, beauty, strong-will and happiness. The master-class said yes to existence, and their values affirmed their belief system, which, due to their position of control, created their disposition as elite and influenced the norms for morality at their time. Since the master-class viewed themselves as good, they distinguished themselves from the weaker individuals, those not in power, as bad. The weaker individuals, in pre-socratic times known as plebeians, according to the master-class, were weaker for various reasons. Be it due to their unhappiness, victimization to unfortunate circumstances, weak-will or a lack of courage, pride, or a combination of any of these despicable or non virtuous values. According to the master-class, adherence to these weak values initiated a form of fear within the plebeian, which created a lack of self worth and a lack of freedom or self-consciousness, deemed as slavery.
The discussion of whether evil exists is dependent on the definition of evil. In the sense of human action, evil can be seen as consciously doing harmful acts. The idea of what constitutes evil is then subjective to what a person perceives as harmful. If a society believes that an act is harmful, then it could be constituted as evil. However, this disparages the idea that evil can be universal, because what is harmful to one person or society may be perfectly acceptable to another. How can it be that the same act is considered both evil and not evil? It may be that in every act, there is a mix between evil, and its counterpart, good.
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
The system of justice that Nietzsche employs although somewhat cynical has a substantial amount of merit as a form of justice, which is present in our society. This is demonstrated through the depiction of the creditor/debtor relationship that exists in our democratic societies, and the equalization process that occurs, and furthermore that Nietzsche is correct to assess justice as such a principle. The issue is most obvious in the penal system; however it is also prevalent in personal day-to-day relationships as well as political structures.
When anyone thinks of the word “evil” they do not think it is within themselves. In reality, without a structured and well-followed society, people are apt to follow their own corrupt desires and neglect the thought of consequence. In the allegory, Lord of the Flies, William Golding reveals that man’s selfishness and sinful nature will be unmasked when the structure of a society deteriorates.
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals can be assessed in regards to the three essays that it is broken up into. Each essay derives the significance of our moral concepts by observing
Frederich Nietzsche, philosopher and former Lutheran minister, argued that religion is founded on a general principle of “Do this and that, refrain from this and that – then you will be happy!” (para. 15) which in turn creates a common loss of individual thought among the followers of a religious group, primarily Christianity. Nietzsche’s philosophical views were greatly influenced by the ideals of Ralph Waldo Emerson who, similar to Nietzsche, had formally been a minister and believed in the ideals of individualism. Nietzsche clearly argues within his essay “Morality as Anti-Nature” against religious affiliation, and believed that it was being used as a form of control by using a roster of ideals of right and wrong, which he defines as the “Christian morals.” He believed that Christianity “emphasizes the wrong values for mankind, preferring