I believe he chose these two because they seem to be strong opposites and there are rational. The first morality Nietzsche writes about is the master morality. Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. For these men the “good” is the noble, strong and powerful, while the “bad” is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. Master morality begins in the “noble man” with a spontaneous idea of the “good”, then the idea of “bad” develops in opposition to it (On the Genealogy of Morals).

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!

order now

He stated: “The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, what is harmful to me is harmful in itself”; it knows itself to be that which first accords honor to things; it is value-creating” (Beyond Good and Evil). Nietzsche rationalized the idea that it was the heroes, or the “good”, that gave the master moratlity it’s name. It was not the actual good in it’s self. They realized they were good when they witnessed what would threaten them: the common people, the poor and the weak.

Their position of power included the power over words, the power to decide what would be called “good” and what “bad” (On The Genealogy of Morals). Basically, it means is that what would good be with out bad? You couldn’t define anything unless it had something to contradict or contrast it. On the other end of the spectrum is the slave moratilty. The slave morality is the other side and by default, it is the opposing force. Slave morality begins as ressentiment Ressentiment, or resentment, was a term first used by Nietzsche to describe the feeling of the weak, unhealthy and ugly towards hose who have fared better in life. The slave regards the virtues of beauty, power, strength and wealth as “evil” in an act of revenge against those who have them in abundance. Slave morality is therefore a reactionary morality because “good” does not spring creatively from the individual but develops as a negation of the values of the powerful (Wikipedia). The good person would questions his own worth by thinking about the evil in which would be defining the two as good and evil.

Opposingly, the bad would consider what was good. So, slave morality is defined by “good” and “evil” while master morality is defined by “good” and “bad. ” Nietzsche remarks on how different the concepts of “evil” and “bad” are, in spite of both being considered the opposite of “good. ” He explains this difference by explaining that there are two very different concepts of “good” at work: The noble man’s “good” is precisely what the man of ressentiment calls “evil” (Alderman).

One of the main themes Nietzsche wrote about was how the master morality the foundation to the ancient romans, and that this morality disappeared as the slave morality of Christianity spread through ancient Rome. Nietzsche was concerned with the state of European culture during his natural life and therefore focused much of his study on the history of master and slave morality within Europe. Occasional references, however, also suggest that he meant these terms to be applied to other societies (Peterson).

However, as with so many ideas in Nietzsche’s work, there is no material manifestation of this idea, no hard and fast difference between that which is created by the master morality and that created by the slave (Partridge). While Nietzsche stated repeatedly that the master morality was necessary for the advancement of humankind, he gave examples of where these advances were made through the use of the belief of the slave morality. This is read in his second essay in “On the Genealogy of Morals”.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


I'm Garry

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out