Introduction
Many different theories of morality can give a reasonable idea of how people cope with endless arguments about what is right and wrong, what is good, and what is evil. This paper will consider the well-known theory of Friedrich Nietzsche, which describes the morality of slaves and masters. Nietzsche’s concept, put forward at the end of the XIX century, still causes discussions in scientific circles because the theses put forward by him find a new interpretation. It can see as the most detailed description of Nietzsche’s idea in The Genealogy of Morality.
Morality, according to Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche believed that there are two main types of morality: the morality of the master and the character of the slave. For people of the first type of moral principles, their strength, nobility, and pride are first. They evaluate actions, paying attention to what results the one who acted got for himself. People with a slavish morality believe that kindness and humility play key roles. Therefore, they evaluate not the result of actions but the quality of intentions (good or evil). If the “master” can benefit from his activities due to his efforts, he will commit an act that adherents of slave morality may consider bad. Nietzsche’s concept is universal, and therefore there is an eternal confrontation between its supporters.
The Lord’s Morality
There is a belief that helpful something should be good, and evil should be harmful. Nevertheless, Nietzsche claims that this is only a generally accepted opinion, and those who believe in good and evil do it out of a habit imposed by society. In ancient times, good and evil were associated with consequences – and this makes sense. The cavemen had no intention of helping an older man crossing the street but instead wondered if a battle with another tribe would result in benefits that would exceed losses.
Supporters of the lord’s morality believe that being strong in spirit, proud, noble, and wanting more benefits and power for yourself is the actual value of life. Those who have a terrible attitude to the morality of the masters are weak, cowardly, and petty, which means they are “bad.” A noble type of person can decide what is good for him, that is, good. He is the measure of values for himself and is guided mainly by the will to power. As a rule, a person of the prevailing morality has power. Therefore, he often influences other people; there is a kind of hierarchy in the world. Therefore, those who are among the leaders can affect the subordinate moralist-masters.
Slave Morality
It tramples on oppression in all its manifestations and defames its oppressors. It implies that everything the master has and the slave does not have is worth nothing. Thus, the slave turns out to be more cynical than the master. At the same time, he will not try to impose his opinion by force but will cunningly undermine the morality of the master in such a way that he, too, becomes a slave. A slavish moralist may believe in the voluntary nature of humility, but he cannot realize that it was the master who imposed humility. Friedrich Nietzsche emphasizes that most of the principles mentioned in the Bible are part of the morality of slaves. The Bible teaches mercy, humility, and other forms of condemnation. It is a moral code that a follower of slave morality should follow.
Conclusion
Nietzsche disapproved that the West chose slavish morality. He did not accept the idea that a slave is always trying to rise against his master because slaves did not have a thirst for power. Their main task was to bring power to a level that would become inaccessible to others. It works very well when analyzing democracy because the idea of democracy is that people decide everything (theoretically, anyway). Besides, no one is strong with a religion like Christianity. All people are the same in the eyes of their God, and their God will judge them when the time comes. No, Nietzsche did not believe that the master’s morality is ideal and everyone should accept it. He thought that there were flaws in both sides, but perhaps someone could transform them into a new idea of morality, more consistent.
For Nietzsche, morality, including those on the other side of good and evil, leads to specific violence against “nature.” Without character, nothing arises that makes life worth living. Neither works of fine art nor creations of poetry (not to mention great philosophy!) are impossible without a certain compulsion: without an ascetic life attitude. Nietzsche did not want a “return to nature” to the primitive expression of passions. It brings us to the characteristic of the Nietzschean ideal of man: superman. Nietzsche was a somewhat controversial figure, so everyone has every right to disagree with his opinion about how the world works. It does not negate the fact that it is worth studying some aspects of his theory for basic knowledge. It can give good results if a person wants to take the best of the “master” and “slave” morality.