Master morality

Master-Slave Morality is the theme of some of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morals. Nietzsche 'argued' that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Master morality fits actions into a scale of 'good' or 'bad' whereas slave morality fits actions into a scale of 'good' or 'evil'. What Nietzsche means by 'morality' deviates from common understanding of this term. Fundamental morality, for Nietzsche, imbibes and delineates a whole world-view; it is formative of a particular culture at its very root. This means that its language, codes and practises, its narratives and institutions - basically the very structures of intelligibility that underpin Western culture as such - are informed by the struggle between these two types of evaluation.

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. superman 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, First Essay, Section 11) He said: "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).

Slave morality
Slave morality begins in those people who are weak, uncertain of themselves, oppressed and abused. The essence of slave morality is utility: the good is what is most useful for the community as a whole. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power vis-a-vis the strong by treating those qualities that are valued by the powerful as "evil," and those qualities that enable sufferers to endure their lot as "good." by lace3yams...

Transcendental Values
The values that the 'noble man' creates, i.e. Master morality, are in effect transcendental, they provide the horizon for our whole Western exegesis. With the Death of God, for Nietzsche, our horizons become (paradoxically) historical: we realise that they were created by Men. Thus from one perspective the noble man of Master morality, was the literal creator, or evaluator, of a particular value structure that we always operate within. It is only from within this structure that things become intelligible, it engenders our thought and language from its very ground. For Nietzsche values penetrate fact, norms engender our world view to such an extent that they are transcendental - like a semantic cage, outside of which nothing makes sense.

Most importantly Slave morality is not healthy and pure human creation because it is re-active. It is a reaction to crisis. It is that horizon which is formed in opposition to Master morality. For Nietzsche the master-slave opposition is essentially a rhetoric that calls for us to create our own values, to take control of our very own Horizons (to become like Abraham and create the boundaries within which human life will take place).\by mhizzy desu

On society
This transcendental struggle between the values of the master and the slave finds continual expression in 'world history'. One of the main themes in Nietzsche's work is that ancient Greek and Roman societies were grounded in master morality, and that this morality disappeared as the slave morality of Christianity spread through ancient Rome. Indeed he goes so far as to say that the essential struggle between cultures has always been between the Roman type and the Judean type. Furthermore there is no doubt who had, by Nietzsche's day, won this struggle. As he put it; "consider before whom one bows today in Rome as before the epitome of all the highest values...before Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet-maker Paul, and the mother of the aforementioned Jesus, Mary" (sect.16 "On the Genealogy of Morals"). Nietzsche was concerned with the state of European culture during his lifetime and therefore focused much of his analysis on the history of master and slave morality within Europe. He claimed that the nascent democratical and socialistic movements were engendered by much the same motivations as had impelled the first Christians in their revolt against Rome. These were the (often unconscious) motives of resentment and "priestly vindictivness". Such movements were, to Nietzsche, inspired by "the most intelligent revenge" of the downtrodden masses. By Nietzsche's time however movements such as socialism were in fact both secular and naturalistic in outlook. As such the covert use by such movements of concepts like "ethical truths" and "moral facts" was totally incongrous (in Nietzsche' view) with their outlook taken as a whole. It was not surprising that Nietzsche wrote witheringly of both the first Christians and the (secular) modern moralist as he viewed them both as having the same underlying slave morality and therefore as psychologically dishonest. Occasional references also suggest that he meant the terms "master" and "slave" to be applied both to other (non-European, non-ancient) societies and to struggles on-going within individual persons.