Nietzsche and Morality: Whats the right thing to do?

Parag Bhatnagar
Two types of morality Traces philological and genealogical arguments to determine the origin of two types of
morality

History cannot directly tell us the evolution of morality

Rejects the notion that morality is the result of people doing what is beneficial to
themselves or to others.
o In order to know that something was good or bad, useful or not useful, Nietzsche
posits that we would need to have an already established sense of morality in
place.

Master morality
Originates in inequality created by powerful individuals like warriors/nobles
Stems from excellence being the idea of good (principally because the nobles
identified themselves as good) and poverty being undesirable (creation of the
other and casting the slaves and plebeians in that role)
Advocates the idea of working towards excellence, perfection and the glory
of humanity. Producing excellent individuals is the purpose of humanity
Role of the master - works towards excellence
Role of the slave (other) - facilitate the masters attempt towards perfection
This is why Nietzsche is fond of the Greeks, because they aspired towards Gods
who were the best at whatever they did. They sought the blessing of the Gods,
not their pity.
Slave morality
Stems from ressentiment of nobles (feeling of frustration at an individual or a
group of individuals that is characterised by the inability to change ones situation)
Good came about due to this evil i.e. the nobles and commoners and plebeians
were the good.
Belief that the path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of
the selfish and the tyranny of evil men (Ezekiel 25:17)
o
o

Created by the Jews and propagated by Christianity (Nietzsche is NOT AntiSemitic but is pointing out historical fact)
Christ was the ultimate slave. He was a human who worked tirelessly in
devotion and service to others instead of focusing on self-growth and striving
towards excellence

Advocates equality and community spirit over perfection and excellence

Works on bringing down individuals to the level of the lowest common
denominator
This is the current paradigm that the world follows, which suppresses originality
and stifles the progress of humanity due to satisfaction with mediocrity

Disclaimer: Why master morality isnt do what you want

Neither master morality nor slave morality give clear definitions of what an
individual in society should do, as ones roles in society arent clearly defined and
thus there is no clear paradigm on what one should do in society.
Nietzsche thus makes no normative claims about what one should do in society.

Argues that slave morality is bad

Motivated by ressentiment: Not a valid sentiment to have
o
o

The role of the master is natural and resenting the idea of a master is like a lamb
resenting an eagle for preying on it. It is impossible to think of the eagle not
killing, since being an eagle means to be a bird of prey.
Use of philology to demonstrate why ressentiment is invalid. He argues that
separating the subject from the verb, as English does is not representative of
nature. Hating it for what it does would be hating its existence itself, which is
unnatural

Even if ressentiment was valid, it is a negative force that prevents progress of

humanity. By preventing the progress of humanity, we stifle humanitys true
potential, preventing us from using our intellect for the improvement of society.
This, therefore makes us no better than animals.
Nietzsche would therefore value progress over equality - some men are born
better than others (Ubermensch)

Arguments with respect to Mill

Nietzsche would agree with Mill, since Mill also believes that genius should not
be repressed and advocates freedom of speech for the progress of humanity and
for the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
Nietzsche does not exactly advocate either slave morality or master morality
completely, but believes that inequality and progress are natural and necessary
for humanity. An ethical system similar to the one Mill purports would be in line.
However, there are certain ways in which Mill and Nietzsche would differ in their
opinion, which Yan Lin will discuss in her presentation
Arguments with respect to Singer & Dalai Lama
Nietzsche would argue that the Dalai Lama and Singer advocate slave morality
and would be directly opposed to them.
He would feel most strongly against Singer, because principally Singer would
have the rich giving everything away and reducing their level to the point where
everyone is equal, i.e. everyone is brought down to the lowest common
denominator
Becomes a question of a few people living lavish lives and some people living
mediocre lives versus everyone living miserable lives
This goes directly against everything Nietzsche has advocated upto this point,
and there is a direct conflict in ethics between what is more important in this case
- compassion for the rest of humanity (the idea of charity, altruism, benevolence)
or self-motivated pursuit of excellence.
Kevin and Vicki will deal more with these arguments.