According to the "First Essay: ‘Good and Evil’, ‘Good and Bad’" in Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals, in the history, there was a significant shift of our moral system. Human beings have altered from following a Good and Bad Morality (GBM) system (master morality) to embracing a Good and Evil Morality (GEM) system (slave morality).
First, we need to make a distinction between these two systems.
In GBM, the good and bad is not defined or judged in the current way, evaluating certain actions or attitudes to be moral or immoral. Instead, it is determined by whether one belongs to the nobles (the masters) or the slaves. And this classification is not literally based on the rank difference of social status, but on certain psychological characteristics possessed by the individuals. For example, characteristics such as ‘courage, conquest, aggression, and command’ that produce the feeling of power are deemed as ‘good,’ while weak traits like ‘cowardice, passivity, humility, and dependence’ are deemed as ‘bad.’ And, as the masters live a self-affirming life, the concept of ‘good’ is created before the one of ‘bad.’
Later on, the slaves develop within themselves a particular sentiment toward the masters, which Nietzsche calls ‘ressentiment’. Since the slaves are weak and inferior in power, they are unable to revolt against the masters physically. As a result, switching to revolt in a psychological manner, they become creative, inventing the concept of ‘evil.’ Here, the invention of the new system is actually a reactive one. In the slave morality, the concept of ‘evil’ precedes ‘good,’ since the negating of the original ‘good’ acts as the foundation or basis for the current concept of ‘good,’ which is simply meaning ‘not-evil.’ As a reaction toward the previous moral system, the slaves create a new, opposing system to ‘stylize their own natural weakness into the result of a choice for which they can claim moral credit.’ However, ultimately, this is merely slave morality. And, according to Nietzsche, it is just because of the successfulness of this ‘slave revolt’ that we have ‘forgotten’the previous moral system – master morality.
Another significant metaphysical distinction between these two moral systems have been suggested by Nietzsche in this essay – the assumption of free will or agency. In the GBM, there is no need for this presumption since the moral evaluation is based on the characteristics of persons, on the power relationship. However, in the current GEM, since we are required to take the responsibilities for our actions and attitudes, there is an assumption of free will behind. How could one be responsible for something which he or she has no alternative choice?
Overall, Nietzsche has provided us an overall framework for the transition from GBM to GEM in the history. Understanding this dramatic shift is the basis for us to further proceed to the discussion of the ‘creditor’ versus ‘debtor’ relationship in the next essay, focusing on the concept of ‘bad conscience.’
Nevertheless, Nietzsche within this essay has not provided us a clear and eloquent explanation for how this transition could ever take place, although Nietzsche has suggested the significance of the role that ‘priestly people’ have played within the slave revolt. I think this problem should be fully addressed after we finish the next to essays on ‘bad conscience’ and ‘ascetic ideal.’
Furthermore, I actually question the foundation of the classification between the nobles and the slaves. How is it possible for there be differences, in nature, of powerful and powerless in human beings? For the analogy of birds and lambs that Nietzsche has mentioned in the essay, since they are two species, and they are in nature preys and predators, it is easy for us to imagine the naturalness of this relationship. Nevertheless, how is it possible for human beings, as the same species, possess two opposing kinds of psychological characteristics? Are these characteristics really in nature or be nurtured? Is it possible that these characteristics have actually been developed under the particular social or environmental circumstances at that time?
Bibliography
Nietzsche, F., & Kaufmann, W. A. (2011). On the genealogy of morals. New York: Vintage Books.
Comments