by Roy Jackson
If morality ceases to serve a useful function, yet continues to be maintained by society, this might stunt the growth of that society because we continue to live by rules that are no longer applicable to the world we live in. Nietzsche looked to his own society and saw it to be in a state of decay for this very reason: it looked to the old values, the old Christian values.
When Nietzsche talks of the morality of Western Europe being the product of a particular time and people, what he had in mind in terms of the people were Christian slaves at the time of the Roman Empire, from around the first to the third centuries CE. This is why he refers to the morality of his time as ‘slave morality’, as opposed to the ‘noble morality’ possessed by the Romans before the coming of Christianity. What is needed is a new morality. By considering the genealogy of morals, Nietzsche hoped to demonstrate why we have the values we do. This way, if we still continue to hold such values, we are at least aware that they are effectively redundant. Nietzsche’s ultimate hope is that we, or perhaps the Superman (see Chapter 7), will create new values.
In considering why Christianity originated with the slaves of the Roman Empire, Nietzsche argued that the slaves saw it as a way of releasing themselves from bondage. As the slaves were not powerful enough to literally free themselves from their masters, they were consoled by religious belief that provided them with spiritual liberation. Christianity, like everything else, is an expression of the will to power. The first Christians were slaves under the Roman Empire and the only way they could assert any kind of superiority over the Romans was to assume a higher spiritual status. This was achieved, according to Nietzsche, by inverting the values of society. For example, the Christians regarded values such as compassion or pity as righteous values that would lead to reward from God, whereas other values such as self-interest were seen as sinful.
Nietzsche argued that the expression of pity is a weapon the weak use against the strong. He criticized the view of pity presented by Schopenhauer and Wagner, who believed that when you feel pity you experience others’ suffering as if it were your own, for, at the bottom of Schopenhauer’s Will, we are all identical beings. Nietzsche, however, did not believe it was possible to literally feel someone else’s pain and, therefore, experience true pity. To want pity is, Nietzsche thought, to want others to suffer with you. Nietzsche observed that the effort of some neurotics to arouse pity in others is because they wish to hurt others and to demonstrate that they at least have this power.
RESSENTIMENT
The real motive for promoting such values was not because there actually is a God that enforces such values, but because the slaves resented the status of the Romans and wanted to possess their power. This is what Nietzsche means by the French term ressentiment. The slave feels impotent compared with the master and he is not able to accept the idea that he is treated worse than others. This leads to hostility, to resentment, yet he is unable to release this hostility because of his enslavement. What is the slave to do? He cannot simply use brute force, as this will result in him being in a worse state than before, and so he must use guile.
In order to enact revenge upon his master, the slave uses the weapon of moral conduct. It consists of getting the master to acquiesce to the moral code of the slave and, as a result, appraise himself according to the slave’s perspective. As Christians, of course, the slaves do not have the option of revenge, for they should ‘turn the other cheek’. However, so successful were the slaves in their guile and secrecy that they managed to disguise their revenge under the cloak of pure intentions.
If the master estimates his own worth according to the values of the slave, he will perceive himself and his actions as evil and reprehensible. His old aristocratic values will be discarded, as he feels morally obliged to do ‘good’ in the Christian sense. Nietzsche portrays the Roman aristocrat as physically powerful, healthy and aggressive. These qualities remain but, unable to express them externally, they are directed inwards. The aristocrat ends by punishing himself rather than others.
For Nietzsche, slave morality could have arisen only out of hatred and fear. The slave’s morality is a reaction to the actions of others. That is, when someone does something to you that you resent, then you class it as ‘bad’ and, consequently, you create a morality in opposition to this – one that is ‘good’. If you are frightened of your neighbour, you react by wanting your neighbour to love you and this is why love is a Christian virtue. The master’s morality, however, is not a reaction to others at all. The master has no need to view himself according to the actions of others, but rather affirms himself. He does not require to be loved or for everyone to conform. The master can also hate, but this hatred is discharged in a ‘healthy’ manner through direct action, rather than, in the case of the weak, through resentment.
Nietzsche is presenting both an historical and psychological portrayal, and it is dubious on both counts. From the psychological point of view, Nietzsche portrays the slave as someone with so much pent-up aggression that it becomes poisonous unless it is expressed in some natural way. This resembles the equally unconvincing psychological theory that children should be allowed to let out their aggression, otherwise it will remain bottled up inside and express itself in later life in some other form. From the historical perspective, we must allow Nietzsche a certain degree of artistic licence, so long as the point is made. He is specifically thinking of Christianity when he talks of religion. Nietzsche was not talking about all religions, for he admired the Greek religion. His main concern with Christianity was its dehumanization: because God is regarded so highly, as perfect and all-good in fact, then it logically follows that man regards himself so lowly, as necessarily imperfect and sinful. Nietzsche did also criticize Jewish slave morality for being the originator of Christian morality.
One of the misunderstandings of Nietzsche’s philosophy needs to be made clear at this point. Nietzsche was not an anti-Semite. It is clear from his correspondence that he hated anti-Semites and, in fact, all racist theories. This misunderstanding derives from reading Nietzsche out of context, always a dangerous thing to do, as well as Nietzsche’s youthful enthusiasm for Wagner’s ideas, and Wagner most definitely was an anti-Semite. Nietzsche’s sister Elisabeth, who married an anti-Semite, interpreted her brother’s works as anti-Jewish. Nietzsche’s language can be easily misinterpreted, especially when he uses such phrases as ‘blond beast’ (GM, 11) when referring to the masters. This has been used as an indication that Nietzsche supported German nationalism and Hitler’s views on Aryanism. However, what Nietzsche actually meant by ‘blond beast’ was a reference to the lion as king of the beasts.
Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s views on the master–slave morality are perhaps his most controversial and it is easy to understand why when we consider a few of the main points:
• The master morality of the Romans made a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’. ‘Good’ applies to those who are united, noble and strong. ‘Bad’ refers to the slaves who are weak and base.
• This notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ therefore is not moral. ‘Bad’ merely means to be one of the herd, the ‘low-minded’. ‘Good’ means the noble and intellectual.
• Christianity reinterpreted ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as ‘good’ and ‘evil’. ‘Good’ was now represented by the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, which included such values as altruism. ‘Evil’ became what for the masters was previously ‘good’.
Nietzsche obviously admires the masters, and there is a certain pro-aristocracy element to him here. Nietzsche evidently approves of a firmly defined class structure and had a disdain for the moral and social mores of the masses. He was certainly very conservative in this respect and was no liberal democrat (see Chapter 10 for his political views).
Criticism of the priests
Nietzsche specifically attacks the Christian (and, before them, the Jewish) priests in their role of promoting the slave morality. The priests were in a unique position in society, in that they we
re both strong and weak at the same time. They were weak in relation to the aristocratic masters but strong spiritually because they were God’s agents on earth. The pastoral, as opposed to the royal, power that the priests possessed was used as a tool for social control and promoting the moral ideal of the herd.
Although he refers to the herd, or slave, morality as promoting the teachings of Christ, Nietzsche places the blame firmly on St Paul as the one who misinterpreted Jesus’ teachings. In fact, Nietzsche regards Jesus as a member of the master morality because Jesus was a life affirmer who criticized the Jewish priests for using religion as a means of social control. St Paul, who travelled across the Roman Empire establishing churches in the first century, set the stage for the development of the slave morality and corrupted Jesus’ teachings to suit his own ends. The ethic that was endorsed was one of asceticism and self-denial. St Paul was a Roman citizen and was educated in Greek philosophy, and so he made Christianity acceptable to the Romans by incorporating Greek philosophical ideas, especially the Platonic view of dualism. An outlook was presented based on a dualistic world-view: this world being one of necessary suffering but preparation for a better world in the next life. This world was inferior, therefore, to the next world, and the priests had turned Christianity into life denying, instead of Christ’s life affirmation.
The idea of the Superman
For Nietzsche, the declaration that ‘God is dead’ sets humankind free: each person can become his or her own being, the ‘Superman’. This morality is a rejection of the herd morality. These are the elite, people who have mastered their own will to power and created life-affirming values to live by. The most crucial value for Nietzsche was that we should be life affirming. The Superman, therefore, is one who realizes the potential of being a human being and is not consoled by a belief in the next life. The Superman has mastered himself and creates his own values.
Nietzsche gave little consideration to the practical implications of his philosophy. He is not a democratic philosopher, for he is not a supporter of the values of the common herd. He believed in the great man, the hero, the Superman, who should be a law unto himself. However, it is difficult to see how a society that consisted of such an elite, one that establishes its own values, would function in society. They would, presumably, look towards the masses with contempt, and one wonders how the Superman could live either among the masses or even among themselves. There would be inevitable conflict, although Nietzsche would have welcomed this, provided it led to a revaluation of values.
Nietzsche’s rejection of such Christian values as turning the other cheek, loving your neighbour and compassion for those who are suffering might come across as somewhat callous. For one reason or another, many people are unable to stand on their own two feet or face the realities of life, and so there is a need for compassion. However, Nietzsche did not despise such values as compassion but only the use of them as a psychological prop rather than looking towards one’s own resources. Nietzsche’s own almost crippling illness plagued him for most of his life, but the last thing he would have wanted was compassion or pity.
However, Nietzsche seems too selective when talking about religion (see Chapter 9 for more on Nietzsche’s religious views), asserting the negative while ignoring the variety of religious belief. Even if it were the case that Christianity is the cause of a slave morality, it has also been a vehicle of many revolutionary changes that Nietzsche himself might approve of. The same can be said of many other religions that Nietzsche would regard as ‘life denying’. Where does Nietzsche get his values? Nietzsche does not envisage his Superman as someone who is mean, vindictive or indiscriminately violent and cruel. Yet we must wonder why this Superman should not be violent and cruel. How can Nietzsche pick and choose the Superman’s morality? Perhaps Nietzsche himself did not fully escape the values of his own religious upbringing.
Key ideas
Normative ethics: the branch of ethics concerned with deciding what sort of things are good and providing practical guidance for moral decision making
Meta-ethics (also referred to as analytic ethics): the branch of ethics primarily concerned with what we mean when, for example, we say ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘just’
Utilitarianism: a moral theory that works on the principle that it is human nature to avoid pain and pursue pleasure: the greater the amount of happiness, the more morally right the act
Ethical naturalism: the view that our morality can be based in some way on our nature
Ressentiment (the French word for ‘resentment’): term used in Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals – the hostility that the slave feels towards the master
Things to remember
• Nietzsche is primarily concerned with meta-ethical issues rather than normative ethics.
• Nietzsche is highly critical of just about every moral system that has been presented in the history of philosophy so far.
• Nietzsche made his famous remark ‘God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him’ in his book The Gay Science.
• Nietzsche’s morality is notoriously difficult to interpret, although we can say with certainty that he was opposed to the belief in objective moral truths.
• In Essay 1 of On The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche describes how modern ‘herd morality’ derives historically from the early Christians.
• By the French term ressentiment, Nietzsche means the expression of a feeling of inferiority and powerlessness.
• The Supermen are those who declare that ‘God is dead’ and, consequently, create their own morality.
• Nietzsche was not so much concerned with providing a table of values. What mattered was that values should be life-affirming.
Fact-check
1 What is normative ethics concerned with?
a What it means to be morally normal
b What we mean when we use terms such as ‘good’ or ‘bad’
c Concrete, practical guidance
d An ethical theory that argues for the greatest happiness for the greatest number
2 What is meta-ethics concerned with?
a Ethics that come from metaphysics
b How moral language is used and what we mean by it.
c Concrete, practical guidance
d An ethical theory that argues for the greatest happiness for the greatest number
3 What is ethical naturalism?
a The view that we can determine what is right and wrong from our nature
b The view that we would all be better people morally if we shed our clothing
c An ethical theory that argues for the greatest happiness for the greatest number
d The view that nature is cruel
4 What is utilitarianism?
a An ethical theory that argues for the greatest happiness for the greatest number
b An ethical theory that argues that we get our morals from reason
c An ethical theory that our morality comes from God
d The view that it is not possible to establish an ethical theory
5 Which one of the following philosophers was a utilitarian?
a Immanuel Kant
b John Stuart Mill
c Friedrich Nietzsche
d Arthur Schopenhauer
6 What is the naturalistic fallacy?
a An error in logic when you move from factual statements to value statements
b The incorrect belief that anything is natural
c The incorrect belief that nature can tell us anything
d The view that you can derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’
7 What is ressentiment?
a Nietzsche’s favourite French dessert
b The hostility that the master feels towards the slave
c The subtitle of Nietzsche’s work Beyond Good and Evil
d The hostility that the slave feels towards the master
8 What is ‘slave morality’?
a A particular reference to the morality of the Christian slav
es during the time of the Roman Empire
b The view that slavery is moral
c The view that slavery is immoral
d Nietzsche’s view that the working classes were enslaved and should rebel against the elite
9 How does slave morality emerge?
a From love and compassion
b From hatred and fear
c From hunger and poverty
d From power and wealth
10 Who does Nietzsche blame for the herd morality?
a Jesus
b St Paul
c The Pope
d The Superman
Dig deeper
Daniel Conway, Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals: A Reader’s Guide (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008)
Lawrence J. Hatab, Nietzsche’s ‘On the Genealogy of Morality’: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
Brian Leiter, The Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Nietzsche on Morality (London: Routledge, 2002)
6
The will to power
In this chapter you will learn:
• how important the will to power is for Nietzsche’s philosophy
• to what extent the will to power can be seen as an explanation for how the world works
• to what extent the will to power can be seen as a subjective phenomenon
• a possible third explanation of the will to power as providing an empirical account of the world.
Typically, Nietzsche does not do us the favour of giving us a nice, friendly, accessible account of his ‘doctrine’ of the will to power. In fact, it is hardly a ‘doctrine’ at all, hence the inverted commas. The debate over what the will to power actually is and how much importance should be attached to it centres on two different interpretations:
