Are you good or good? Bad or evil? Nietzsche may just have the answer. For this piece I will focus on the first essay in his On the Genealogy of Morality (GM) entitled ”Good and Evil’, ‘Good and Bad”. The crux of this is the debate surrounding the power play between two types of morality, that of the master or warrior noble, and that of the slave or ‘herd’. It is important too to understand what he means when discussing genealogy and I will begin there.
He refers to the ‘English psychologists’; such as Hobbes, Hume and his one time friend the German Paul Rée, who Nietzsche groups with them, and criticises for their utilitarian linear understanding of the term. Genealogy for Nietzsche was not about legitimising people, institutions or traditions; it is not something that could be used to lend credibility to our present structures and ideals. There is no origin story and certainly not one relating to a small group of people hanging out and moralising in Palestine two thousand years ago. Genealogy is about a series of varying events from different places with different process’ converging, influencing and evolving again with others later. Even if there were an origin it likely wouldn’t be one we would approve of with our sense of compassionate Judeo-Christian morals, more one involving violence, coercion and subjugation. Ironically three things littered throughout the history of Christianity. A linear understanding of morality in the sense of it’s genealogy merely highlights the Christian influence upon the history of Europe in the last two thousand years. Nietzsche’s aim is to delegitimise the Judeo-Christian manipulation of this term and the credibility it grants them.
We exist now in a time of the slave morality, our moral code has been created by the weak, by the herd, and it has been created out of a resentful hateful impotence towards that of the warriors. What is meant by that is that in the past, say pre-history, so pre-Christian history, those with power were the warriors. They held on to their power through their strength and subsequently dictated what should be deemed morally ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The warrior or noble of this time valued strength, courage and glory, and classed these as ‘good’ values to achieve. For them anything other was deemed ‘bad’ in contrast to merely not being them and their ‘good’; the common man, the unhealthy, the weak.
The priests were also part of the nobility but without the political power of the warrior noble. They had the expectations of the nobility and subsequently believed a certain type of life had value above all others. They desired the wealth and especially the political power of this life but were weak comparable to the warriors, it was impossible to achieve their desires through the same means. Despite this impotence they maintained a ‘will to power’, they maintained a commitment to their desired life. This refusal to accept their impotence, while also recognising it’s existence led to deep envy and hatred within the priestly caste and from this they developed ressentiment. Their ressentiment was a “repressed vengefulness” (GM 1 : 7), an inability to exorcise and a suppression of their envy and hatred. They resented their impotence and the shame that came with it. According to Nietzsche this ressentiment became creative and from that gave birth to the slave morality. They constructed a positive value in what the warriors deemed ‘bad’. While the priests may have proclaimed love and compassion, their morals were created out of hatred, envy and resentment.
“Priests make the most evil enemies…Because they are the most powerless. Out of this powerlessness their hate swells” (GM 1 : 7).
The priests changed our understanding of morality, they changed what it was to be ‘good’ and more importantly what it was to be now ‘evil’. The very values held by the warriors, the affirmation of their own self-worth, importantly what maintained their position in society yet repressed or constricted others, became ‘evil’. The priests ‘good’ was the antithesis of the warriors ‘good’. The worshipping of meekness and the weak became a way of demonising the values of the warriors and as a way of circumventing and empowering themselves. The priest doesn’t need strength to achieve power, instead the priest merely convinces others that power itself is unworthy. The ‘evil’ warrior wants power while the priest merely wants neighbourly love, they created value in political equality. The issue for the priest though is that their ressentiment has not disappeared, they may condemn the nobles but they both still desire the same “victory, spoil and seduction” (GM 1 : 8). The difference being that the warrior nobles acted out of this positive affirmation for themselves, while the priests acted reactively out of impotent hatred and rejection of others.
The society based upon this slave morality may in a sense empower us, the herd, but it doesn’t exists in our best interests. It valorises the qualities which would be the inverse of what made the warrior’s powerful and ‘good’, we now exist in a world which commends this new ‘good’. We are commended for passivity, for meekness, for submissiveness, and in Nietzsche’s eyes, ultimately for mediocrity. We have created and exist in what has become a mediocre society full of mediocre people. The man of ressentiment created a world which feared the outsider, or anything different, it is a world born as a counter to the warrior’s ‘good’ and as such is a reactive world. The slave morality has created a culture in which everything exists within a mediocre rulebook of flawed moralities. They are flawed because they’re born out of this reactive hatred and because they valorise weakness and mediocrity. The reactive man of ressentiment lacks the introspective thought to realise their own self-worth and break free of this mediocrity. While this mediocrity may suit the herd it also suppresses anyone who may try to rise above and out of it, keeping all in this substandard mediocrity. An inevitable acceptance of this leads to a belief in the pointlessness of life and an embrace of nihilism.
Nietzsche held onto the classical realist position that moralities exist because they are in the interests of whichever group pushes them. Those in power will push self-interested morals and language that conserves the hierarchy and their position within it, in that sense compassion and equality can be viewed as fundamental tenets of the morals of those without power. The slave morality in this case can be viewed as just another way of creating the conditions best suited to the empowerment of the herd, or at least the priests through the herd.
Words such as ‘noble’, ‘aristocratic’ or ‘high-minded’ were conceptually linked with and synonymous with the warrior’s ‘good’, and ‘common’, ‘plebeian’ or ‘low’ with ‘bad’. In ancient Greek words for ‘real’ and ‘genuine’ evolved into meaning ‘noble’, and contrastingly ‘dark’ and ‘black’ would be used to describe dangers or untrustworthiness, as well as the dark skinned common man in the field who the blond white Aryan conqueror displaced. There was a steady manipulation of language to create an ingrained perspective of the value of the nobility and it’s position as the ‘good’ in society. In time the priests merely did the same. They associated ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ with ‘good’ and ‘evil’. The resultant connection of pureness with abstinence and restraint, the very values that also came with the impotence of powerlessness that the priests and slaves had in abundance.
Nietzsche believes there are types of people, in a sense that we’re born this way. He uses the bird of prey and lamb analogy to explain this. The bird of prey kills the lamb not because it is ‘evil’ but because it is a natural action. This is a sign of the strength of the bird and weakness of the lamb. The lamb though believes the bird of prey could not kill if it wanted and that it’s action is a choice, a belief that “the strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb” as Nietzsche put it in Beyond Good and Evil. However he believed the bird of prey is not separate from it’s action, nor free to kill or not kill. The naturalness of it’s ability to kill the lamb is what makes the bird a bird of prey yet it is the lambs ressentiment which makes it believe it is a choice. The bird of prey becomes ‘evil’ for existing as it does and the lamb ‘good’ for the same reason. The slave morality lauds those who do not kill or hurt, and in turn praises those powerless to do so regardless. The priests turn their impotence into a positive and demonise the strengths of others.
This is an overview of the first essay in GM more than any type of critique. The intention is to give a general understanding as opposed to swaying the reader towards any particular interpretation.
Observations and Misunderstandings 