Lectures 14 and 15: Nietzsche, the Genealogy of Morals, and the Aristocratic Principle in Nature
Lectures 14 and 15
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Lecture 14: The Genealogy of Morals
14.1 Nietzsche Resources
All of Nietzsche’s major works are available free online.
Episteme Links: http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/TextName.aspx? PhilCode=Niet
The Nietzsche Channel http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/
Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/n#a779
The text Beyond Good and Evil is available in English at http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/beyondgoodandevil_tofc.htm
References to these lectures:
Robert Wicks “Friedrich Nietzsche” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Nietzsche/
Brian Leiter “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Nietzsche-moral-political/
14.2 Review
a). Classical Utilitarianism assumes that happiness is the only intrinsic good. What other intrinsic goods might there be? In other words, what sorts of values are worthwhile, if not simply happiness? (Think of the Haydn vs. the Happy Oyster case, or the case of the character Neo in The Matrix. What sort of life is worthwhile, if it’s not necessarily a happy one?).
b). Utilitarianism and Kant’s deontology both presuppose that one morality is best for all people. Do you agree?
c). What sort of life would a purely Kantian individual have? (That is, one that only does things that fit with the Principle of Universalizability).
14.3 Preliminary Questions
c). Kant assumes that humans have free will, and should be held responsible for everything that they do. If there was, in fact, no free will- if it was in fact a cognitive illusion, would this force us to change our morality, and our sense of justice?
d). What sorts of values would a society need to have to create strong, independent and creative people? Are these values the same as those respected in Japan today?
14.4 Biographical Note
Friedrich Nietzsche is widely considered one of the most important thinkers of the Modern period, and is best known for challenging the foundations of morality and Christianity. He was born in the small town of Röcken bei Lützen, a farming area near Leipzig in Germany, in 1844. Ironically (given that Nietzsche is famous for declaring the ‘death of God’), his father and both grandfathers were Protestant Ministers. He entered the University of Bonn in 1864 to study theology (religion) and philology, which is the study of ancient languages and texts. He became interested in philosophy when, in 1865, he discovered a book by Schopenhauer in a book store. (Nietzsche never formally studied or taught philosophy).
In 1867, at the age of 23, Nietzsche did military service, and at 24 was awarded his PhD and he began lecturing philology at the University of Basel. In his mid- 20’s he was also a close friend of the German composer Richard Wagner. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 Nietzsche served as an army nurse. During this service he contracted diphtheria, dysentery and possibly also syphilis, and for the rest of his life he was very sickly. He was forced by his health problems to drop out of teaching. For the rest of his productive life, every year, Nietzsche would travel back and forth from Germany to Italy and Switzerland and back again, never staying in any one town for more than a few months, writing his books (all of which were self- published) and generally living a solitary, wandering existence.
In 1889, after seeing a horse being whipped in the street, Nietzsche had a total mental breakdown and became insane. He would live a further ten years with his sister, never to learn of his growing fame. Only fourteen years after his death, he was a major literary figure: in 1914, 150,000 copies of his Thus Spake Zarathustra were distributed by the German Government to soldiers to provide inspiration.
14.5 What sort of Philosophy did Nietzsche Write?
Nietzsche’s books do not look like standard philosophical works, in fact he was only really taken seriously in the English- speaking world as a philosopher from the 1960’s on (he was a huge success in Japan in the 1930’s, however). For the first half of the 20th Century he was regarded by English- speaking writers as little more than a proto-Nazi. He avoids a standard, analytical style, preferring to express himself in aphorisms, poems, tirades, and even, in the key work Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883-1885), in a prose style reminiscent of a religious text. He also avoided any straightforward explanation of his theories. As such, nobody agrees on even basic questions of interpretation.
A Note of Caution:
Nietzsche frequently uses rhetoric, hyperbole and open insult to make his points, and the reader should be aware of when such techniques are being used to cover up a lack of solid argumentation. In particular, Nietzsche employs a strikingly seductive writing style. Thus Spake Zarathustra carries the subtitle “A Book for All and None”- that is, it is written for only the secret, select few- and not for the ‘common man.’ To read and enjoy his books, Nietzsche insinuates, proves that you are one of the Elect. This makes Nietzsche ideal for recruiting philosophy students, but it is not necessarily good philosophy.
14. 6 Philosophical Background: Schopenhauer, the Death of God, and the Specter of
Nihilism
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Nietzsche’s main intellectual influence, rejected the Christian worldview, in particular that there exists a benevolent God or a Heaven or Hell. He also rejected Kant’s belief that absolute reality is unknowable. For Schopenhauer, the Truth of the Universe is endless strife, chaos and pain- or- if we are lucky- boredom. Schopenhauer describes Absolute Reality as The Will: a mindless, chaotic and amoral force that drives all natural processes, including human existence. As all human life is painful, Schopenhauer, argues, it is meaningless. (note the Utilitarian assumption here). Our only hope is to escape suffering through asceticism, or through aesthetic experience. (That is- try to live like a monk, or escape the Will by looking at the world through art-works).
Nietzsche accepts Schopenhauer’s worldview, and apparently his ontology, but thinks that Schopenhauer has made a mistake in rejecting the Will. Nietzsche accuses Schopenhauer of denying life, a charge he also levels at Buddhism and Christianity. To have healthy, good lives, Nietzsche thinks, we need to affirm the Will (sometimes he calls it the Will to Power)- to become strong and powerful, and to give life our own meaning.(To the question “what is the meaning of life?” Nietzsche would say “Life has the meaning that you give it.” Life is therefore an artistic project ).
To make this transition to life- as- art possible, Nietzsche thinks that we must reject all traditional morality- all Deontology, all Utilitarianism, all Contract Theory, all religion. He thinks that all of these moral systems are based on Christianity, in particular the principles of avoiding causing harm to people, the idea of justice, and the idea that everyone is equally important.
Nietzsche also detected, in the culture of 19th Century Europe, a loss of faith in Christianity. In own words, “God is Dead” (stated in Thus Spake Zarathustra). Without the traditional worldview, Europe was without fundamental values, in fact was under threat of the absence of values to believe in- that is, Nihilism. Why does he think that traditional, Christian morality is bad? And what could fill the void left by the Death of God?
14. 7 The Genealogy of Morals
here are two short lines from Nietzsche’s texts concerning what he calls the Genealogy of Morals.
The watchwords of the battle, written in characters which have remained legible throughout human history, read: “Rome vs. Israel, Israel vs. Rome.” No battle has been as momentous as this one.
Genealogy of Morals (1887)
What an age finds evil is commonly an anachronistic echo of what previously was found to be good—the atavism of an older ideal.
Beyond Good and Evil (1886) Aphorism 149.
Recall the discussion from Lecture 12 on Aristotle (12.3 and 12.8)- Aristotle considered power and wealth to be a requisite of being a good person, luxury and pride to be virtues, and slavery to be part of the natural order of things. Every one of these principles was rejected by the Christians. Nietzsche’s philosophy answers two questions concerning this - 1). How did this transformation take place? and 2). Has this change in morality really been good for Western Civilization? Or has it been unhealthy?
This is what Nietzsche thinks happened. Originally, there were the Master Types- who had what he called a Master Morality. The Masters, in this story, are the Romans and Greeks. To be Good, for these people, meant to be rich, beautiful, powerful, arrogant, and magnificent. But, for their society to function, they needed to keep slaves, who were often of a different ethnicity. The slaves- the Jews and the early Christians- decided to take revenge. But they had no power, or weapons, so their revenge had to be of a very subtle kind. It had to be an intellectual revenge.
The masters had beauty, riches and power. The slaves had no money, were ugly and poor, and were powerless. So that they could feel good about themselves, they made the following assertion- the only real values are other-worldly or intangible. Beauty is dismissed as superficial, to be powerful or rich is to be a sinner; brotherly love is the only true morality. In Heaven the powerless will be recompensed their pains, and in Hell the Powerful will be punished. Enjoying one’s own wealth, sexuality, appetites, talents, free time, or power (luxury, lust, gluttony, pride, sloth, wrath) all become deadly sins. For whatever reason, the Masters began to listen to the Slaves, and eventually the Romans became Christian. Master Morality disappeared, and Slave Morality took over.
It was the Jews who, in opposition to the equation (good=aristocratic=beautiful=happy=loved by the gods), dared…to suggest the contrary equation…”the wretched are alone the good, the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the pious, the only ones who are pious, the only ones that are blessed, for them alone is salvation- but you- you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally you shall be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!’
Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals section 7 (p.17).
Nietzsche holds therefore that all subsequent morality in the West is a spiritual poison, with an origin in the hatred of Jewish and Christian slaves towards their natural superiors. So, all of those values and duties that Christianity considers holy and good are in fact due to self- deception, jealousy, impotence (powerlessness) and cowardice. Whereas the Christians preach ‘love for all mankind,’ Nietzsche takes this to be eternal hatred of the strong and powerful ‘Master- Types.’ All subsequent morality, Nietzsche thinks, is infected with this same ‘sickness.’ All Christianity is allegedly a religion for weak people, whose effect is to distort or destroy the healthy qualities of superior cultures.
Historical Background: Nietzsche’s ‘Slave Morality’ is not entirely original. In Plato’s text Gorgias the character Callicles argues that all morality is just a trick of the weak to protect themselves from powerful people. Similar attacks on Jewish/ Christian morality date back to the 16th Century, and are hinted at in the works of Rousseau and Helvetius (A very old and famous anti- Christian text, “The Three Imposters,” of unknown authorship, is available on the internet). Baron d’Holbach, an atheistic philosopher, wrote the following in 1750: “Europe! Happy land where for so long a time the arts, sciences, and philosophy have flourished; you whose wisdom and power seem destined to command the rest of the world! Do you never tire of the false dreams invented by the impostors in order to deceive the brutish slaves of the Egyptians? [...] Leave to the stupid Hebrews, to the frenzied imbeciles, and to the cowardly and degraded Asiatics these superstitions which are as vile as they are mad....”
14.8 What sort of Moral Theory does Nietzsche Have?
There are no moral phenomenon at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.
Beyond Good and Evil Aphorism 108.
Nietzsche has no systematic moral philosophy. Brian Leiter describes Nietzsche’s ethics as a consequentialist perfectionism. That is, Nietzsche thinks that the best ethics is that which fosters human excellence. A whole culture’s whole reason for existing is to produce just a small number of excellent people: “A people [Ein Volk] is nature's detour to produce six or seven great men. Yes, and then to get around them” (Beyond Good and Evil Aph. 126). Christianity encourages mediocrity and sameness, whereas Master Morality encourages superiority and originality. Nietzsche’s ethics is consequentialist in that spiritual health and strength is the only factor in deciding on a morality or belief (not even whether it is true or not), and that only this consequence is important.
Although Nietzsche had no systematic morality, he attacks all normative ethics, in particular Utilitarianism and Kant.
All normative ethics presupposes:
a). The Free Will thesis. – The view that humans have a free and rational will.
b). That there is a universally applicable morality. –(From Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil: [morality says] “I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality.” [BGE:202].
Free Will, Justice, and Conscience (Contra Kant)
Recall that Kant thinks that people are free, and are therefore a). accountable for their acts, if they commit crimes, and b). worthy of respect. Nietzsche rejects the doctrine of fee will. Why do we have the concept of free will? Because, thinks Nietzsche, all punishment is merely a jealous attack on the strong by the weak. He also argues that free will is a cognitive illusion, noting that “a thought comes when ‘it’ wishes, and not when ‘I’ wish” (BGE:17). In order to convince the strong of their ‘evilness,’ the concept of conscience was invented. Not only are ‘criminals’ actually innocent, Nietzsche suggests; they should be judged on their artistry, if their crimes are very artistic or original.
The lawyers for a criminal are rarely sufficiently artistic to turn the beautiful terror of his action to the benefit of the person who did it.
Beyond Good and Evil Aphorism 110
14.9 Nietzsche’s Values: Life as Art (Contra Utilitarianism)
What are, then, Nietzsche’s virtues? In the text Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche lists the following as virtues of true artists and philosophers: imagination, self- assertion, danger, originality and the “creation of values.” He also attacks the idea that exploitation, domination, injury to the weak, destruction and appropriation are universally objectionable. To have a healthy, life- affirming life, Nietzsche thinks, one should express one’s “will to power,” exerting strength and creativity, and acting with indifference to whoever is harmed by one’s own actions. As such, he rejects the Utilitarian view that we should help other people, or that there is a single universally applicable notion of the good. The idea that happiness is the only intrinsic good is, for Nietzsche, mindlessly, boringly empty- the “blue vacuum of heaven”(Genealogy of Morals p.6).
(Recall the discussion question: what kind of life could a purely Kantian person have? And could they actually produce any art, or live an artistic life, if they had to use the Universalizability Test?)
What one should do, therefore, depends on what kind of person one is. Slave- morality may be fine for the ‘slaves,’ but for the masters, to be strong, healthy and overflowing requires that one follow one’s own principles.
Who, according to Nietzsche, represent the master- types? Nietzsche discusses at length in particular Caesar, Napoleon, Goethe, Dostoevski, Thucydides, and himself.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
You should know what the Genealogy of Morals is
You should know why Nietzsche rejects all Normative ethics, in particular
Utilitarianism and Kant.
You should know about Nietzsche’s Morality.
Lecture 15
Nietzsche and the Aristocratic Principle in Nature
I am not a man! I am dynamite!
Nietzsche Ecce Homo (1888)
15.1 Why is ‘Slave Morality’ detrimental to Artistic Creation?
As discussed in the last lecture, Nietzsche considers artistic creation and ‘excellence’ as more important than morality itself. He also argues that powerful, creative artist- types would actually be harmed by following ‘slave- morality.’ In short: ‘Slave Morality’ thwarts ‘human excellence’ and makes society weak.
Our weak, unmanly social concepts of good and evil and their tremendous ascendancy over body and soul have finally weakened all bodies and souls and snapped the self- reliant, independent, unprejudiced men, the pillars of a strong civilization (Daybreak 163).
Men of great creativity, the really great men according to my understanding, will be sought in vain today [because] “nothing stands more malignantly in the way of their rise and evolution…than what in Europe today is called simply ‘morality.’ (Will to Power section 957).
But is this really true? On the one hand, we can imagine features of our respective cultures that really are detrimental to artistic flourishing and creativity. In New Zealand we have the concept of “Tall-Poppy- Syndrome”- a sort of ridiculing and jealousy of very ambitious and creative people. In Japan there is the expression “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” This seems to be what Nietzsche has in mind. But Nietzsche is saying something more extreme. He is talking about rejecting basic Jewish/ Christian/ Buddhist principles, like don’t kill or torture people. How do core moral principles get in the way of artistic flourishing?
A human being who strives for something great considers everyone he meets on his way either as a means or as a delay and obstacle- or as a temporary resting place (BGE: 273).
Think of some famous writers or artists who were unpleasant, or thoroughly immoral. Is there some connection between their unpleasant qualities and their artistry?
(Think of Stanley Kubrick, or Paul Gaugin, or William Burroughs, for example).
Are there any great creative people that were not particularly immoral?
15.2 What are the Implications of Accepting Master Morality?
What Nietzsche experts frequently fail to mention is what the implications of Nietzsche’s anti- ethics actually are. The following passage, from The Genealogy of Morals, makes clear the implications of returning to ‘Pagan Morality.’
15.3 The Naturalistic Fallacy/ Problems with Nietzsche’s Conception of Health
There are two serious problems with Nietzsche’s assertion that Slave Morality is unhealthy, and that only Master Morality is healthy. Much of this discussion is based on the claim that Jewish and Christian morality is unnatural, and that the morality of the masters is natural, hence, better. This sounds like the Naturalistic Fallacy, however.
15.4 The Genealogy of Morals: Why are the Jews to blame?
(And, if the MMorality of the West is Jewish, why not thank them?)
Nietzsche blames the Jews for creating ‘slave morality’ out of a sense of jealousy for the masters.
a). Did Nietzsche actually know anything about Jewish morality?
Typical of so- called Slave Morality is to deny this world completely, and to assert Heaven as being more important, or to dismiss the good things in this world (sex, good food, physical pleasure, etc) in favor of such intangibles as ‘brotherly love.’ Jewish ‘Slave morality’ is also described by Nietzsche as celebrating weakness and poverty, and rejecting power, strength and riches. One wonders if Nietzsche (or any of his contemporary critics) had ever actually read a Jewish book, or had spoken with a single religious Jewish person. In fact Jewish morality (codified in the Jewish legal text The Talmud) emphasizes the importance of living a healthy life (Jews are forbidden from living in areas without a good hospital and a good doctor, for example). Judaism (unlike Christianity) has a very vague notion of heaven. Judaism has no culture of asceticism, unlike Christianity, and Judaism considers this world to be a gift from God to be enjoyed. Against Nietzsche’s belief that we should accept this world, and its injustice and pain, exactly as it is, Judaism insists on the morality of Tikkun Olam- the world is broken, and it needs to be fixed. (Which is the more heroic attitude- accept the world as it is, as Nietzsche proposes, or try to change it, as Judaism, and socially engaged Christianity, teaches?) As for sexuality- if a woman is unhappy with her husband’s lack of attention, she can divorce him instantly. The Jewish religious writings seem in places far more sensuous than anything Nietzsche could have written. The following, in the Torah/ Old Testament, is taken from the Song of Songs (Also known as the Song of Solomon)-
1. How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.
2. Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.
3. Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.
4. Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.
5. Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thine head like purple; the king is held in the galleries.
6. How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights!
7. This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.
8. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
9. And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.
As for celebrating weakness, all Jewish males are religiously required to fight for the defense of the Jewish people. The Torah (the Old Testament, as the Christians know it) is in fact full of battles and war heroes, and, as Nietzsche acknowledged, had a very different morality to that of the New Testament. Yet he never acknowledged his inconsistency.
15.3 The Genealogy of Morals: an Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory?
Robert Nola at the University of Auckland suggests that the Genealogy of Morals is merely a conspiracy theory. Nietzsche did not give any references to any historical or scholarly studies on Jewish history or culture in his texts; in short, he appears to have simply invented it all. Of particular concern is: why would he think that the Jews of the Ancient World created a new morality merely to weaken the Romans? The implication is serious: Nietzsche is arguing that The Jews don’t really believe in their own morality. It’s just propaganda. (It’s like saying that the Japanese only pretend to adhere to Bushido principles). If that is true, the Jews don’t really believe in basic Jewish- Christian principles- such as “don’t steal,’ ‘don’t lie’ and ‘don’t kill.’ Not only that- they would need almost superhuman powers of persuasion and, essentially, mind- control. This is not so different to the bizarre theories that the Nazis developed. A simple possibility is not considered: perhaps Jewish-Christian morality became entrenched in Europe because it was a good idea.
15.4 The Genealogy of Morals a Genetic Fallacy?
The origins of an idea are not, strictly speaking, relevant to the assessment of that idea. The Nazis, for example, tried to ban tobacco, because they thought that it was unhealthy. We can’t say that they were wrong because they were Nazis. They were in fact correct. The same goes with whoever it was that thought of ‘Slave Morality.’ It just isn’t relevant that it was slaves who thought of it first (and it probably wasn’t).
The reverse is also true. Nietzsche thought that eating nothing but fresh fruit and drinking lots of laudanum (alcohol containing opium) would make him healthier. If you argue that eating nothing but fresh fruit is good for you because Nietzsche thought so, you’re committing the same fallacy.
15.5 What is the association of Weakness and Normative, Universal Morality?
Think of some great moral leaders- Martin Luther King Jr, for example, or Mahatma Gandhi, or for that matter the fathers of normative morality- Prince Siddhartha (The Buddha), Zoroaster (a high priest), or Moses (probably an Egyptian prince), or even Jesus- in what sense were these people weak?
15.6 Racism and Sexism in Nietzsche
Nietzsche describes the Jews, Blacks and other groups as basically inferior, and of a morality as being a tool for the ‘perfection’ of a race. While defenders may suggest that Nietzsche had simply erred on this one point, the problem is this: why do we think that it is erroneous to not consider people as equals? Racism cannot be criticized by anyone that accepts Nietzsche’s basic moral claims.
Nietzsche’s views on women are also infamous.
When a woman has scholarly inclinations, then something is usually wrong with her sexuality. Infertility itself tends to encourage a certain masculinity of taste, for man is, if I may say so, “the infertile animal.”
Beyond Good and Evil Aphorism 144.
15.7 Nietzsche’s Naturalism
Nietzsche argues that exploitation, domination, violence and cruelty are natural, and that kindness and other basic moral values to be unnatural. Even if we don’t think that he is committing the Naturalistic Fallacy, is his characterization of ‘human nature’ perhaps one- sided? Or excessively masculine? (Recall Aristotle’s assumption that men are ‘complete’ and women are ‘incomplete’).
15.8 The Implications of Nietzsche’s Anti-Ethics: The “Blond Beast”
Nietzsche, in The Genealogy of Morals, describes the ‘ideal type,’ the ‘blond beast,’ who ruled Europe before the rise of Christianity. In the history of Rome, Arabia, Japan, Germany and Scandinavia, he argues, there are to be found an aristocratic group who were free to do whatever they liked, beyond the social controls that governed the behaviour of ordinary people. Nietzsche argues that we must return to the ethics of such people if we are to be strong and healthy.
They enjoy there freedom from all social control, they feel that in the wilderness they can give vent with impunity to that tension which is produced by enclosure and imprisonment in the peace of society, they revert to the innocence of the beast-of-prey conscience, like jubilant monsters, who perhaps come from a ghostly bout of murder, arson, rape and torture, with bravado and a moral equanimity, as though merely some wild student’s prank had been played… (GM: 22).
Some commentators will argue that Nietzsche is just being ‘ironic’ here- but this celebration of crime here is perfectly compatible with the rest of his thought. The cost of accepting Nietzsche is accepting that rape, arson, torture and murder are acceptable for a select group of ‘masters.’
15.9 Nietzsche’s Importance
If Nietzsche’s thought is so obviously flawed, why should we even care? Nietzsche’s type of doctrine says something like this: “Life is about struggle; the weak should just be ignored, or used.” If Modern Civilization had a philosophy that tried to justify wars of conquest, slavery, and the rest, it would look something like Nietzsche’s: “We will enslave you because we are better than you, and besides, if we didn’t, we would not be able to achieve great things.” If we can successfully criticize Nietzsche, we can successfully criticize any other variant of the same immoral elitism.
This is rat eat rat, dog eat dog. I'll kill ‘em, and I'm going to kill ‘em before they kill me. You're talking about the American way – of survival of the fittest.
Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s (1902-1984)
15.10 Nazism and the Aristocratic Principle in Nature
It has been commonplace amongst Nietzsche scholars to reject the Nietzsche- Nazism association. When Elizabeth Förster- Nietzsche, his sister, met Hitler and popularized her brother’s work in Nazi Germany, it is argued, she was merely distorting her brother’s work. But if we read Nazi literature, in particular Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Table Talk, the similarity is striking. This is what Hitler says in a conversation with his colleagues in 1942. Like Nietzsche, Hitler argues that the change to Christian morality ended the Roman Empire, and that Christian morality was created by the Jews to destroy Rome.
The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world – in order to ruin it – re-opened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social question…It is Jewry that always destroys this [natural] order. It constantly provokes the weak against the strong, bestiality against intelligence, quantity against quality. It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity. We would therefore be wrong to sin by excess of confidence and proclaim our definite victory over Bolshevism...[a] people that is rid of its Jews returns spontaneously to the natural order (17 February 1942; TT: 314).
Hitler also describes Christianity as a ‘disease’ that needs to be wiped out in order to preserve the health of Europe.
Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance… What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judaeo-Bolshevism [Jewish-Communism] must collapse (27th February 1942, TT: 343-344).
Even if we grant that Nietzsche hated German nationalists, and occasionally said nice things about Jews, this is really irrelevant to the real question: what would happen if very powerful people take Nietzsche’s ideas about supremacy, and Jewish-Christian morality, seriously? What would happen if someone tried to make Europe healthier, by destroying Christianity and Judaism? How would it not resemble Nazism?
What You Need to Know
You should know of the basic flaws in Nietzsche’s 'Genealogy of Morals' theory.
You should know the implications of accepting Nietzsche’s ethics
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Lecture 14: The Genealogy of Morals
14.1 Nietzsche Resources
All of Nietzsche’s major works are available free online.
Episteme Links: http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/TextName.aspx? PhilCode=Niet
The Nietzsche Channel http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/
Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/n#a779
The text Beyond Good and Evil is available in English at http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/beyondgoodandevil_tofc.htm
References to these lectures:
Robert Wicks “Friedrich Nietzsche” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Nietzsche/
Brian Leiter “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Nietzsche-moral-political/
14.2 Review
a). Classical Utilitarianism assumes that happiness is the only intrinsic good. What other intrinsic goods might there be? In other words, what sorts of values are worthwhile, if not simply happiness? (Think of the Haydn vs. the Happy Oyster case, or the case of the character Neo in The Matrix. What sort of life is worthwhile, if it’s not necessarily a happy one?).
b). Utilitarianism and Kant’s deontology both presuppose that one morality is best for all people. Do you agree?
c). What sort of life would a purely Kantian individual have? (That is, one that only does things that fit with the Principle of Universalizability).
14.3 Preliminary Questions
c). Kant assumes that humans have free will, and should be held responsible for everything that they do. If there was, in fact, no free will- if it was in fact a cognitive illusion, would this force us to change our morality, and our sense of justice?
d). What sorts of values would a society need to have to create strong, independent and creative people? Are these values the same as those respected in Japan today?
14.4 Biographical Note
Friedrich Nietzsche is widely considered one of the most important thinkers of the Modern period, and is best known for challenging the foundations of morality and Christianity. He was born in the small town of Röcken bei Lützen, a farming area near Leipzig in Germany, in 1844. Ironically (given that Nietzsche is famous for declaring the ‘death of God’), his father and both grandfathers were Protestant Ministers. He entered the University of Bonn in 1864 to study theology (religion) and philology, which is the study of ancient languages and texts. He became interested in philosophy when, in 1865, he discovered a book by Schopenhauer in a book store. (Nietzsche never formally studied or taught philosophy).
In 1867, at the age of 23, Nietzsche did military service, and at 24 was awarded his PhD and he began lecturing philology at the University of Basel. In his mid- 20’s he was also a close friend of the German composer Richard Wagner. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 Nietzsche served as an army nurse. During this service he contracted diphtheria, dysentery and possibly also syphilis, and for the rest of his life he was very sickly. He was forced by his health problems to drop out of teaching. For the rest of his productive life, every year, Nietzsche would travel back and forth from Germany to Italy and Switzerland and back again, never staying in any one town for more than a few months, writing his books (all of which were self- published) and generally living a solitary, wandering existence.
In 1889, after seeing a horse being whipped in the street, Nietzsche had a total mental breakdown and became insane. He would live a further ten years with his sister, never to learn of his growing fame. Only fourteen years after his death, he was a major literary figure: in 1914, 150,000 copies of his Thus Spake Zarathustra were distributed by the German Government to soldiers to provide inspiration.
14.5 What sort of Philosophy did Nietzsche Write?
Nietzsche’s books do not look like standard philosophical works, in fact he was only really taken seriously in the English- speaking world as a philosopher from the 1960’s on (he was a huge success in Japan in the 1930’s, however). For the first half of the 20th Century he was regarded by English- speaking writers as little more than a proto-Nazi. He avoids a standard, analytical style, preferring to express himself in aphorisms, poems, tirades, and even, in the key work Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883-1885), in a prose style reminiscent of a religious text. He also avoided any straightforward explanation of his theories. As such, nobody agrees on even basic questions of interpretation.
A Note of Caution:
Nietzsche frequently uses rhetoric, hyperbole and open insult to make his points, and the reader should be aware of when such techniques are being used to cover up a lack of solid argumentation. In particular, Nietzsche employs a strikingly seductive writing style. Thus Spake Zarathustra carries the subtitle “A Book for All and None”- that is, it is written for only the secret, select few- and not for the ‘common man.’ To read and enjoy his books, Nietzsche insinuates, proves that you are one of the Elect. This makes Nietzsche ideal for recruiting philosophy students, but it is not necessarily good philosophy.
14. 6 Philosophical Background: Schopenhauer, the Death of God, and the Specter of
Nihilism
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Nietzsche’s main intellectual influence, rejected the Christian worldview, in particular that there exists a benevolent God or a Heaven or Hell. He also rejected Kant’s belief that absolute reality is unknowable. For Schopenhauer, the Truth of the Universe is endless strife, chaos and pain- or- if we are lucky- boredom. Schopenhauer describes Absolute Reality as The Will: a mindless, chaotic and amoral force that drives all natural processes, including human existence. As all human life is painful, Schopenhauer, argues, it is meaningless. (note the Utilitarian assumption here). Our only hope is to escape suffering through asceticism, or through aesthetic experience. (That is- try to live like a monk, or escape the Will by looking at the world through art-works).
Nietzsche accepts Schopenhauer’s worldview, and apparently his ontology, but thinks that Schopenhauer has made a mistake in rejecting the Will. Nietzsche accuses Schopenhauer of denying life, a charge he also levels at Buddhism and Christianity. To have healthy, good lives, Nietzsche thinks, we need to affirm the Will (sometimes he calls it the Will to Power)- to become strong and powerful, and to give life our own meaning.(To the question “what is the meaning of life?” Nietzsche would say “Life has the meaning that you give it.” Life is therefore an artistic project ).
To make this transition to life- as- art possible, Nietzsche thinks that we must reject all traditional morality- all Deontology, all Utilitarianism, all Contract Theory, all religion. He thinks that all of these moral systems are based on Christianity, in particular the principles of avoiding causing harm to people, the idea of justice, and the idea that everyone is equally important.
Nietzsche also detected, in the culture of 19th Century Europe, a loss of faith in Christianity. In own words, “God is Dead” (stated in Thus Spake Zarathustra). Without the traditional worldview, Europe was without fundamental values, in fact was under threat of the absence of values to believe in- that is, Nihilism. Why does he think that traditional, Christian morality is bad? And what could fill the void left by the Death of God?
14. 7 The Genealogy of Morals
here are two short lines from Nietzsche’s texts concerning what he calls the Genealogy of Morals.
The watchwords of the battle, written in characters which have remained legible throughout human history, read: “Rome vs. Israel, Israel vs. Rome.” No battle has been as momentous as this one.
Genealogy of Morals (1887)
What an age finds evil is commonly an anachronistic echo of what previously was found to be good—the atavism of an older ideal.
Beyond Good and Evil (1886) Aphorism 149.
Recall the discussion from Lecture 12 on Aristotle (12.3 and 12.8)- Aristotle considered power and wealth to be a requisite of being a good person, luxury and pride to be virtues, and slavery to be part of the natural order of things. Every one of these principles was rejected by the Christians. Nietzsche’s philosophy answers two questions concerning this - 1). How did this transformation take place? and 2). Has this change in morality really been good for Western Civilization? Or has it been unhealthy?
This is what Nietzsche thinks happened. Originally, there were the Master Types- who had what he called a Master Morality. The Masters, in this story, are the Romans and Greeks. To be Good, for these people, meant to be rich, beautiful, powerful, arrogant, and magnificent. But, for their society to function, they needed to keep slaves, who were often of a different ethnicity. The slaves- the Jews and the early Christians- decided to take revenge. But they had no power, or weapons, so their revenge had to be of a very subtle kind. It had to be an intellectual revenge.
The masters had beauty, riches and power. The slaves had no money, were ugly and poor, and were powerless. So that they could feel good about themselves, they made the following assertion- the only real values are other-worldly or intangible. Beauty is dismissed as superficial, to be powerful or rich is to be a sinner; brotherly love is the only true morality. In Heaven the powerless will be recompensed their pains, and in Hell the Powerful will be punished. Enjoying one’s own wealth, sexuality, appetites, talents, free time, or power (luxury, lust, gluttony, pride, sloth, wrath) all become deadly sins. For whatever reason, the Masters began to listen to the Slaves, and eventually the Romans became Christian. Master Morality disappeared, and Slave Morality took over.
It was the Jews who, in opposition to the equation (good=aristocratic=beautiful=happy=loved by the gods), dared…to suggest the contrary equation…”the wretched are alone the good, the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the pious, the only ones who are pious, the only ones that are blessed, for them alone is salvation- but you- you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally you shall be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!’
Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals section 7 (p.17).
Nietzsche holds therefore that all subsequent morality in the West is a spiritual poison, with an origin in the hatred of Jewish and Christian slaves towards their natural superiors. So, all of those values and duties that Christianity considers holy and good are in fact due to self- deception, jealousy, impotence (powerlessness) and cowardice. Whereas the Christians preach ‘love for all mankind,’ Nietzsche takes this to be eternal hatred of the strong and powerful ‘Master- Types.’ All subsequent morality, Nietzsche thinks, is infected with this same ‘sickness.’ All Christianity is allegedly a religion for weak people, whose effect is to distort or destroy the healthy qualities of superior cultures.
Historical Background: Nietzsche’s ‘Slave Morality’ is not entirely original. In Plato’s text Gorgias the character Callicles argues that all morality is just a trick of the weak to protect themselves from powerful people. Similar attacks on Jewish/ Christian morality date back to the 16th Century, and are hinted at in the works of Rousseau and Helvetius (A very old and famous anti- Christian text, “The Three Imposters,” of unknown authorship, is available on the internet). Baron d’Holbach, an atheistic philosopher, wrote the following in 1750: “Europe! Happy land where for so long a time the arts, sciences, and philosophy have flourished; you whose wisdom and power seem destined to command the rest of the world! Do you never tire of the false dreams invented by the impostors in order to deceive the brutish slaves of the Egyptians? [...] Leave to the stupid Hebrews, to the frenzied imbeciles, and to the cowardly and degraded Asiatics these superstitions which are as vile as they are mad....”
14.8 What sort of Moral Theory does Nietzsche Have?
There are no moral phenomenon at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.
Beyond Good and Evil Aphorism 108.
Nietzsche has no systematic moral philosophy. Brian Leiter describes Nietzsche’s ethics as a consequentialist perfectionism. That is, Nietzsche thinks that the best ethics is that which fosters human excellence. A whole culture’s whole reason for existing is to produce just a small number of excellent people: “A people [Ein Volk] is nature's detour to produce six or seven great men. Yes, and then to get around them” (Beyond Good and Evil Aph. 126). Christianity encourages mediocrity and sameness, whereas Master Morality encourages superiority and originality. Nietzsche’s ethics is consequentialist in that spiritual health and strength is the only factor in deciding on a morality or belief (not even whether it is true or not), and that only this consequence is important.
Although Nietzsche had no systematic morality, he attacks all normative ethics, in particular Utilitarianism and Kant.
All normative ethics presupposes:
a). The Free Will thesis. – The view that humans have a free and rational will.
b). That there is a universally applicable morality. –(From Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil: [morality says] “I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality.” [BGE:202].
Free Will, Justice, and Conscience (Contra Kant)
Recall that Kant thinks that people are free, and are therefore a). accountable for their acts, if they commit crimes, and b). worthy of respect. Nietzsche rejects the doctrine of fee will. Why do we have the concept of free will? Because, thinks Nietzsche, all punishment is merely a jealous attack on the strong by the weak. He also argues that free will is a cognitive illusion, noting that “a thought comes when ‘it’ wishes, and not when ‘I’ wish” (BGE:17). In order to convince the strong of their ‘evilness,’ the concept of conscience was invented. Not only are ‘criminals’ actually innocent, Nietzsche suggests; they should be judged on their artistry, if their crimes are very artistic or original.
The lawyers for a criminal are rarely sufficiently artistic to turn the beautiful terror of his action to the benefit of the person who did it.
Beyond Good and Evil Aphorism 110
14.9 Nietzsche’s Values: Life as Art (Contra Utilitarianism)
What are, then, Nietzsche’s virtues? In the text Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche lists the following as virtues of true artists and philosophers: imagination, self- assertion, danger, originality and the “creation of values.” He also attacks the idea that exploitation, domination, injury to the weak, destruction and appropriation are universally objectionable. To have a healthy, life- affirming life, Nietzsche thinks, one should express one’s “will to power,” exerting strength and creativity, and acting with indifference to whoever is harmed by one’s own actions. As such, he rejects the Utilitarian view that we should help other people, or that there is a single universally applicable notion of the good. The idea that happiness is the only intrinsic good is, for Nietzsche, mindlessly, boringly empty- the “blue vacuum of heaven”(Genealogy of Morals p.6).
(Recall the discussion question: what kind of life could a purely Kantian person have? And could they actually produce any art, or live an artistic life, if they had to use the Universalizability Test?)
What one should do, therefore, depends on what kind of person one is. Slave- morality may be fine for the ‘slaves,’ but for the masters, to be strong, healthy and overflowing requires that one follow one’s own principles.
Who, according to Nietzsche, represent the master- types? Nietzsche discusses at length in particular Caesar, Napoleon, Goethe, Dostoevski, Thucydides, and himself.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
You should know what the Genealogy of Morals is
You should know why Nietzsche rejects all Normative ethics, in particular
Utilitarianism and Kant.
You should know about Nietzsche’s Morality.
Lecture 15
Nietzsche and the Aristocratic Principle in Nature
I am not a man! I am dynamite!
Nietzsche Ecce Homo (1888)
15.1 Why is ‘Slave Morality’ detrimental to Artistic Creation?
As discussed in the last lecture, Nietzsche considers artistic creation and ‘excellence’ as more important than morality itself. He also argues that powerful, creative artist- types would actually be harmed by following ‘slave- morality.’ In short: ‘Slave Morality’ thwarts ‘human excellence’ and makes society weak.
Our weak, unmanly social concepts of good and evil and their tremendous ascendancy over body and soul have finally weakened all bodies and souls and snapped the self- reliant, independent, unprejudiced men, the pillars of a strong civilization (Daybreak 163).
Men of great creativity, the really great men according to my understanding, will be sought in vain today [because] “nothing stands more malignantly in the way of their rise and evolution…than what in Europe today is called simply ‘morality.’ (Will to Power section 957).
But is this really true? On the one hand, we can imagine features of our respective cultures that really are detrimental to artistic flourishing and creativity. In New Zealand we have the concept of “Tall-Poppy- Syndrome”- a sort of ridiculing and jealousy of very ambitious and creative people. In Japan there is the expression “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” This seems to be what Nietzsche has in mind. But Nietzsche is saying something more extreme. He is talking about rejecting basic Jewish/ Christian/ Buddhist principles, like don’t kill or torture people. How do core moral principles get in the way of artistic flourishing?
A human being who strives for something great considers everyone he meets on his way either as a means or as a delay and obstacle- or as a temporary resting place (BGE: 273).
Think of some famous writers or artists who were unpleasant, or thoroughly immoral. Is there some connection between their unpleasant qualities and their artistry?
(Think of Stanley Kubrick, or Paul Gaugin, or William Burroughs, for example).
Are there any great creative people that were not particularly immoral?
15.2 What are the Implications of Accepting Master Morality?
What Nietzsche experts frequently fail to mention is what the implications of Nietzsche’s anti- ethics actually are. The following passage, from The Genealogy of Morals, makes clear the implications of returning to ‘Pagan Morality.’
15.3 The Naturalistic Fallacy/ Problems with Nietzsche’s Conception of Health
There are two serious problems with Nietzsche’s assertion that Slave Morality is unhealthy, and that only Master Morality is healthy. Much of this discussion is based on the claim that Jewish and Christian morality is unnatural, and that the morality of the masters is natural, hence, better. This sounds like the Naturalistic Fallacy, however.
15.4 The Genealogy of Morals: Why are the Jews to blame?
(And, if the MMorality of the West is Jewish, why not thank them?)
Nietzsche blames the Jews for creating ‘slave morality’ out of a sense of jealousy for the masters.
a). Did Nietzsche actually know anything about Jewish morality?
Typical of so- called Slave Morality is to deny this world completely, and to assert Heaven as being more important, or to dismiss the good things in this world (sex, good food, physical pleasure, etc) in favor of such intangibles as ‘brotherly love.’ Jewish ‘Slave morality’ is also described by Nietzsche as celebrating weakness and poverty, and rejecting power, strength and riches. One wonders if Nietzsche (or any of his contemporary critics) had ever actually read a Jewish book, or had spoken with a single religious Jewish person. In fact Jewish morality (codified in the Jewish legal text The Talmud) emphasizes the importance of living a healthy life (Jews are forbidden from living in areas without a good hospital and a good doctor, for example). Judaism (unlike Christianity) has a very vague notion of heaven. Judaism has no culture of asceticism, unlike Christianity, and Judaism considers this world to be a gift from God to be enjoyed. Against Nietzsche’s belief that we should accept this world, and its injustice and pain, exactly as it is, Judaism insists on the morality of Tikkun Olam- the world is broken, and it needs to be fixed. (Which is the more heroic attitude- accept the world as it is, as Nietzsche proposes, or try to change it, as Judaism, and socially engaged Christianity, teaches?) As for sexuality- if a woman is unhappy with her husband’s lack of attention, she can divorce him instantly. The Jewish religious writings seem in places far more sensuous than anything Nietzsche could have written. The following, in the Torah/ Old Testament, is taken from the Song of Songs (Also known as the Song of Solomon)-
1. How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.
2. Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.
3. Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.
4. Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.
5. Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thine head like purple; the king is held in the galleries.
6. How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights!
7. This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.
8. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
9. And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.
As for celebrating weakness, all Jewish males are religiously required to fight for the defense of the Jewish people. The Torah (the Old Testament, as the Christians know it) is in fact full of battles and war heroes, and, as Nietzsche acknowledged, had a very different morality to that of the New Testament. Yet he never acknowledged his inconsistency.
15.3 The Genealogy of Morals: an Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory?
Robert Nola at the University of Auckland suggests that the Genealogy of Morals is merely a conspiracy theory. Nietzsche did not give any references to any historical or scholarly studies on Jewish history or culture in his texts; in short, he appears to have simply invented it all. Of particular concern is: why would he think that the Jews of the Ancient World created a new morality merely to weaken the Romans? The implication is serious: Nietzsche is arguing that The Jews don’t really believe in their own morality. It’s just propaganda. (It’s like saying that the Japanese only pretend to adhere to Bushido principles). If that is true, the Jews don’t really believe in basic Jewish- Christian principles- such as “don’t steal,’ ‘don’t lie’ and ‘don’t kill.’ Not only that- they would need almost superhuman powers of persuasion and, essentially, mind- control. This is not so different to the bizarre theories that the Nazis developed. A simple possibility is not considered: perhaps Jewish-Christian morality became entrenched in Europe because it was a good idea.
15.4 The Genealogy of Morals a Genetic Fallacy?
The origins of an idea are not, strictly speaking, relevant to the assessment of that idea. The Nazis, for example, tried to ban tobacco, because they thought that it was unhealthy. We can’t say that they were wrong because they were Nazis. They were in fact correct. The same goes with whoever it was that thought of ‘Slave Morality.’ It just isn’t relevant that it was slaves who thought of it first (and it probably wasn’t).
The reverse is also true. Nietzsche thought that eating nothing but fresh fruit and drinking lots of laudanum (alcohol containing opium) would make him healthier. If you argue that eating nothing but fresh fruit is good for you because Nietzsche thought so, you’re committing the same fallacy.
15.5 What is the association of Weakness and Normative, Universal Morality?
Think of some great moral leaders- Martin Luther King Jr, for example, or Mahatma Gandhi, or for that matter the fathers of normative morality- Prince Siddhartha (The Buddha), Zoroaster (a high priest), or Moses (probably an Egyptian prince), or even Jesus- in what sense were these people weak?
15.6 Racism and Sexism in Nietzsche
Nietzsche describes the Jews, Blacks and other groups as basically inferior, and of a morality as being a tool for the ‘perfection’ of a race. While defenders may suggest that Nietzsche had simply erred on this one point, the problem is this: why do we think that it is erroneous to not consider people as equals? Racism cannot be criticized by anyone that accepts Nietzsche’s basic moral claims.
Nietzsche’s views on women are also infamous.
When a woman has scholarly inclinations, then something is usually wrong with her sexuality. Infertility itself tends to encourage a certain masculinity of taste, for man is, if I may say so, “the infertile animal.”
Beyond Good and Evil Aphorism 144.
15.7 Nietzsche’s Naturalism
Nietzsche argues that exploitation, domination, violence and cruelty are natural, and that kindness and other basic moral values to be unnatural. Even if we don’t think that he is committing the Naturalistic Fallacy, is his characterization of ‘human nature’ perhaps one- sided? Or excessively masculine? (Recall Aristotle’s assumption that men are ‘complete’ and women are ‘incomplete’).
15.8 The Implications of Nietzsche’s Anti-Ethics: The “Blond Beast”
Nietzsche, in The Genealogy of Morals, describes the ‘ideal type,’ the ‘blond beast,’ who ruled Europe before the rise of Christianity. In the history of Rome, Arabia, Japan, Germany and Scandinavia, he argues, there are to be found an aristocratic group who were free to do whatever they liked, beyond the social controls that governed the behaviour of ordinary people. Nietzsche argues that we must return to the ethics of such people if we are to be strong and healthy.
They enjoy there freedom from all social control, they feel that in the wilderness they can give vent with impunity to that tension which is produced by enclosure and imprisonment in the peace of society, they revert to the innocence of the beast-of-prey conscience, like jubilant monsters, who perhaps come from a ghostly bout of murder, arson, rape and torture, with bravado and a moral equanimity, as though merely some wild student’s prank had been played… (GM: 22).
Some commentators will argue that Nietzsche is just being ‘ironic’ here- but this celebration of crime here is perfectly compatible with the rest of his thought. The cost of accepting Nietzsche is accepting that rape, arson, torture and murder are acceptable for a select group of ‘masters.’
15.9 Nietzsche’s Importance
If Nietzsche’s thought is so obviously flawed, why should we even care? Nietzsche’s type of doctrine says something like this: “Life is about struggle; the weak should just be ignored, or used.” If Modern Civilization had a philosophy that tried to justify wars of conquest, slavery, and the rest, it would look something like Nietzsche’s: “We will enslave you because we are better than you, and besides, if we didn’t, we would not be able to achieve great things.” If we can successfully criticize Nietzsche, we can successfully criticize any other variant of the same immoral elitism.
This is rat eat rat, dog eat dog. I'll kill ‘em, and I'm going to kill ‘em before they kill me. You're talking about the American way – of survival of the fittest.
Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s (1902-1984)
15.10 Nazism and the Aristocratic Principle in Nature
It has been commonplace amongst Nietzsche scholars to reject the Nietzsche- Nazism association. When Elizabeth Förster- Nietzsche, his sister, met Hitler and popularized her brother’s work in Nazi Germany, it is argued, she was merely distorting her brother’s work. But if we read Nazi literature, in particular Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Table Talk, the similarity is striking. This is what Hitler says in a conversation with his colleagues in 1942. Like Nietzsche, Hitler argues that the change to Christian morality ended the Roman Empire, and that Christian morality was created by the Jews to destroy Rome.
The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world – in order to ruin it – re-opened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social question…It is Jewry that always destroys this [natural] order. It constantly provokes the weak against the strong, bestiality against intelligence, quantity against quality. It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity. We would therefore be wrong to sin by excess of confidence and proclaim our definite victory over Bolshevism...[a] people that is rid of its Jews returns spontaneously to the natural order (17 February 1942; TT: 314).
Hitler also describes Christianity as a ‘disease’ that needs to be wiped out in order to preserve the health of Europe.
Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance… What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judaeo-Bolshevism [Jewish-Communism] must collapse (27th February 1942, TT: 343-344).
Even if we grant that Nietzsche hated German nationalists, and occasionally said nice things about Jews, this is really irrelevant to the real question: what would happen if very powerful people take Nietzsche’s ideas about supremacy, and Jewish-Christian morality, seriously? What would happen if someone tried to make Europe healthier, by destroying Christianity and Judaism? How would it not resemble Nazism?
What You Need to Know
You should know of the basic flaws in Nietzsche’s 'Genealogy of Morals' theory.
You should know the implications of accepting Nietzsche’s ethics
posted by G. Roche at 11:20 AM
<< Home