Free Essay

Master Ans Slave Moralities

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By aryay
Words 636
Pages 3
In the text “Master and Slave Moralities” by Friedrich Nietzsche, two main oppositions “good” and “bad” were discussed by utilising the differences between master morality and slave morality. Nietzsche describes the master morality, slave morality and his ideas does not connect with ethical relativism but they are closely related to egoism. Primarily, he talks about nobles as an example of master morality. Nobles thinks of themselves as “good”. The reason behind this is the fact that they are coming from aristocratic society and wealth. They think of other people who are not noble, for example peasants and slaves, as “bad”. A noble person doesn’t even look at other people for approval, he is self confident, he creates values. In addition, he explains the slave morality. Because of being a member of working class, they lack self-confidence. First they look at other people, rather than creating their own values. A slave doesn’t have an ego, he looks at others to find himself. Slaves think that noble people are evil. In contrast to the noble class, slaves are the pessimistic type. They feel resentment. They are envious towards the nobles. According to Nietzsche, only slaves can feel resentment. They seek freedom and an instinct for the happiness. A slave is sceptical and distrustful. Furthermore, ethical relativism is the idea that there is no objective right or wrong. Right and wrong behaviour differs from a person to person. Everyone has different views. There are two types of ethical relativism. First is the individual ethical relativism. It depends on the person’s beliefs, thoughts and feelings. Neither a person’s view is correct nor a person’s view is better. Second one is the social ethical relativism. This type of relativism supports that ethical judgement vary from nicety to society and the principle of ethical judgement is in the culture’s point of view. Nietzsche’s text is not an example for ethical relativism because in ethical relativism there is no such thing as “good” or “bad”. You cannot make comparisons between to different individuals point of view. There is no common view of the ethical judgement. On the other hand, Nietzsche’s ideas closely relate with egoism. Egoism also has two different types. One is descriptive, in this version, egoism is a theory that describes what people are like, it supports that people are self-centred or selfish. The second version is normative, it is called ethical egoism. It is about how people should behave. In the text, Nietzsche emphasises on a noble person’s self-glorifying morality. He is aware of the wealth and he feels like he has overflowing power. Nietzsche claims that a noble person will help the unfortunate, not because he feels bad for the less fortunate, but because of the “urgency created by an excess of power”. This demonstrates the characteristics of egoism. The nobles are thinking self-centred and selfish. They are helping the poor to full-fill their own ego. In addition nobles think they are the best, they believe that they are “good” and “trustworthy”. Their ego is too much, they don’t care about anyone but themselves. This also shows that they are selfish and it relates to egoism. To sum up, in the text Nietzsche describes slave and master morality. His ideas connects with egoism but doesn’t connect with ethical relativism. If we try to apply his ideas into our world, nobles would be the rich people like politicians, celebrities, holding owners etc. and slaves would be the working class such as construction workers or people who are working for nominal wage. Maybe, there are people in the working class who feels resentment towards to rich people but in my opinion master morality and slave morality cannot be completely applied to today’s world. The circumstances are different, there are many factors that affects ethical judgement.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

End of an Era

...think. Nietzsche isn’t critical of morality as a whole; in fact he’s welcoming to the concept of a higher morality, which would in turn entertain the lives of higher men, so to speak. He criticizes morality, but he does so fairly, he never favors a single ideology or religion, he is consistent across the board. His perspective on morality focuses on a duality, something he calls “master-slave morality”, where both master and slave morality are two differing sets of values. Slave morality focuses more on kindness and sympathy, whereas master morality focuses more on pride and strength. The core difference being that the “master” set of values was more for the strong willed than it’s “slave” counterpart, in fact he goes so far to say that slave morality is simple a re-valuation of what the master values, which yet again stresses that “intention” aspect of slave morality, whereas master morality focuses more on the consequences of our actions. There’s such a beauty in Nietzsche’s simplicity on the duality of the moralities (and my inadvertent poetry skills), and he reinforces his perceptions with connotations of the two value systems, where slave is viewed, well, as a slave, as a dependent, and where master is viewed as noble and self-empowered. And it’s this assertion where we really see the two moralities start to separate; Nietzsche draws a sharp divider in between slave and master with his perspective on how they regulate themselves. Slave craves external approval, and has......

Words: 692 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Friedrich Nietzsche

...“transvaluation of values”. By emphasizes this idea, Nietzsche tried to make people look beyond the traditional values and undergo the transformation that was vital in obtaining new and true values. Nietzsche also understood that there were two types of morality that existed in society. The two types of morality that Nietzsche emphasized are called master-morality and slave-morality. Master-morality is when the master is the judge and creator of all values. This is what determines the values and dominates strength. On page 214 in Great Traditions in Ethics by Theodore C. Denise, Nicholas P. White, and Sheldon P. Peterfreund Nietzsche states, “He honors whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality is self-glorification. There is a feeling of plentitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which would fain give and bestow.” In other words, Master-morality conveys strength, ability, power and aggressiveness. Those with master morality are strong and have created their own morality and they know that they are their own judges. Nietzsche does not say that it only conveys these four characteristics because there is also a place for compassion. He is also trying to explain that master-morality dominates the characters of humans. The...

Words: 933 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche

...Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche are known to be two of the greatest nineteenth century existentialists of all time. Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe. It regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche both felt that life is irrational. They were problem thinkers who chose not to follow the systematic approach to philosophy as their predecessors did. In this regard, they stood on common ground. Both realized that no system of philosophy operates in isolation of its creators inherent prejudices. Any subjective viewpoint is biased; therefore, objectivity is impossible in any moral example. They both recognized that God no longer exists in religion in present-day expression. Men and women go about their daily lives in a manner irreverent of the possibility that there is an all-powerful God governing their affairs. Surprisingly, they proclaim their devotion to God when questioned about it. However, in their attempts to resolve this moral affliction Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are different in their quest for a cure. The very foundations of their moral constitutions were built upon conflicting ideologies: Kierkegaard put his in Christianity, while Nietzsche’s in individualism and self-determination. ......

Words: 2004 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Evaluate Nietzsche's Critique of Christian Morality

...In Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality,” the author addresses the historical origins and circumstances that influenced the meaning of our current moral values. Nietzsche argues that Christian morality sprung from the resentment that the weak felt for the strong, which led to the revaluation of preexisting values through the development of slave morality. This slave morality was designed for the protection and glorification of the weak and aroused sympathy and guilt in the strong, which, consequently, began to question their power and legitimacy. Nietzsche criticizes Christian morality, highlighting that it is an infective rationalization of weakness, which hinders the growth and progress of the human race. However, it could be argued that Nietzsche’s arguments are too naturalistic and can only be viable when based on an atheistic framework. In addition, despite the thorough critique of Christian morality, Nietzsche fails to offer an alternative system of morality, which questions the plausibility of his arguments. Nietzsche argues that Christianity sprung froth from Judaism and asserted that Christian morality was developed from the base motivation of what he called ‘ressentiment’, which is the feeling of hostility that the slaves held for the master race. The philosopher claimed that the Jews, out of their ressentiment and hatred for the strong master race, began to reject the “aristocratic value equation,” which stated that the good are the strong, the......

Words: 952 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Eco-Feminist Principles in Her Underground

...Eco-feminist principles refer to principles derived from the concept of eco-feminism. Eco-feminism refers to the union of radical ecological movement that seeks to champion the civil rights of women (Gregory and Giancola 378). Ecology is the study of living organism in relation to the environmental systems such as social ecology and economic ecology. Social ecology explores the symbolic, psychological, and ethical issues affecting the relationship between human beings and the environment. In most cases, eco-feminists surveys issues affecting women in the society such as political rights, access to employment, and other civil rights that are entitled to women. Nonetheless, women rights are still contemporary issues in the modern society because of the social alienation and discrimination of women in the society because of the patriarchal societal systems. For instance, the western culture does not advocate for equality for women as far as gender sensitivity is concerned. According to Gregory and Giancola, the issues affecting women in the society are ecological crisis dated from the 20th century (377). Therefore, Eco-feminism offers an alternative that society needs to adopt and embrace to foster equality without oppression of women. As such, there are varied Eco-feminist principles outlined by world ethics. The first Eco-feminist principle is reshaping of the dualistic concept of reality (Gregory and Giancola 382). The concept of reality focuses on the biblical fact that......

Words: 2844 - Pages: 12

Premium Essay

Kant vs Nietzsche Philosophy Paper

...question of morality. We are going to take a look at positions taken by great German philosophers Kant and Nietzsche on the question of morality and the way people should be treated, based on their arguments presented in theories developed by them. Kant’s philosophy is based on the assumption that there is a metaphysical dimension which implies that there are some absolute things that do exist outside of human beings and which are the ends in themselves (not intended to promote an achievement of any other end). Kant calls these abstract absolute things the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative in his view is something that is not dependent on anything else and, therefore, should be something that we should strive for. The concept of the categorical imperative is important because we can use it to determine whether our actions are being moral through the application of the universal law, which implies the categorical imperative. The universal law says that we should never act except in such a way that we can also will that our maxim should become a universal law. The whole system of Kant’s morality is based on the assumption that there is an autonomous will, which is the source of moral action and decision-making. Kant refers to it as a good will, which can be regarded as good without qualification, because it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself. According to this, here arises an interesting point that explains how Kant’s system of......

Words: 2047 - Pages: 9

Free Essay


...1. The idea that “existence precedes essence” is that, for human beings, there is no predefined pattern that we must fit into. We live our lives which defines what we truly are, not any idealized set of characteristics. This idea is the heart of Sartre’s existentialism. We must create our own meaning, place our own value on our acts, and make our individual freedom absolute and unbounded. Sartre, although an atheist, stated the meaning that God is the full existential realization of every perfect, ideal or essential attribute of God. Sartre described that as an impossibility, but it is also a good description of what a believer believes God to be. 2. The first principle of existentialism is humanism. Atheistic existentialism declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or the human reality. In addition, this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is......

Words: 946 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Thomas Jefferson Declaration Rhetorical Analysis

...In Jefferson’s first draft of his Declaration which he presents to a “candid world,” he was not using his language as medium to display his own morality but the morality of the colonists’ cause against Britain. He understood that slavery could be used as a platform to preach a higher morality. Jefferson assumed the newly established country would at least rhetorically be founded on ideas of justice and equality. He wanted to create a enlightened nation with “freedom,” and “liberty” as the foundation of its establishment. The Revolutionaries, rather then incriminate themselves, chose to omit Jefferson’s point on slavery from the final draft. Nevertheless, it appears that Jefferson understood the inconsistences involved with the peculiar institution and the colonists fight for “liberty.” This public...

Words: 822 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay


...hello & goodbye |Ethical Theories : A Reflection | | | |Vanessa Claudja P. Carlos | | | | | |A Requirement for Paul Amerigo Pajo’s IT-Ethic Class | |De La Salle – College of Saint Benilde | Abstract This book is a consolidated collection of opinions on the Ethical Theories, a chapter from a book assigned to the students of IT-Ethic Section O0B, advised by Mr. Paul Amerigo Pajo. Works written by James Rachels, John Arthur, Friedrich Nietzche and the like are studied and analyzed and some are criticized by the author of this book. Dedication I dedicate this book to the following: My dearest family, who always believes in me; My sweetest friends, who never fails to keep me sane in this crazy world; Lastly, I dedicate this book to the Almighty Father, for everything else is nothing without You. Chapter I Egoism and Moral......

Words: 4684 - Pages: 19

Free Essay


...Nietzsche an anti-philosopher? What is nihilism and how does it fit into Nietzsche’s being an anti-philosopher. ▪ Anti-philosopher – is a radical critic of certain techniques and foundational doctrines of modern science and philosophy, in other words, rejects the possibility of a neutral stance or “perspective less perspective.” Wants them top have their own perspective ▪ Nihilism – belief the universe lacks meaning and purpose What did Nietzsche mean when he said, “God is Dead?” ▪ The idea of God has lost its full creative force, its full power ▪ Our true faith is science and technological progress ▪ We can’t handle truth ▪ Describe an overman and an underman using Nietzsche’s concepts of slave morality and master morality?...

Words: 445 - Pages: 2

Free Essay


...(A) 1.On the Genealogy of Morality is a philosophical treatise by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, first published in 1887, and is also a follow-up to  Beyond Good and Evil. , a book previously written by Nietzsche.  2. This book is composed of a preface and three additional sections which discuss the ways in which our views of morality have changed. He goes through history and gives a timeline of how morality has changed up until the time of when the book was written. One major point of Nietzsche is that there is a difference between a thing and its meaning.  He argues that things don’t have an inherent meaning, and that the meaning of those things have changed over time. In the books he connects this concept with or view of morality, and in particular to good and evil. Thus he arrives at a conclusion that there isn’t any objective and inherent truth to morality.   He concludes the one can only have a true understanding of things only when we realize that the meaning of certain things has changed overtime. In this book he explains this in further detail with his “will to power” perspective. (3) Outline- Prologue 1) Good and Evil, Good and Bad A) Faulty Explanations of Morality B) Meaning of Good C) Change in language - Change in power D) Jews as Priestly class - Revaluation of values E) Lambs and Birds of Prey F) Slave Morality - Justice -Christian Hatred2 Guilt, Bad Conscience, and Related Matters A) Promises -human predictability B) Guilt C)......

Words: 2069 - Pages: 9

Free Essay


...Nietzsche v. Bowden In this paper I will analyze the ethical theories of Nietzsche and Bowden and apply them to the recent case involving Volkswagen and its use of “defeat” devices to cheat diesel emissions tests. In order to effectively analyze whether or not the actions of Volkswagen were ethical, I will first discuss Nietzsche’s view of morality, followed by Bowden’s application of care ethics. In Beyond Good and Evil Friedrich Nietzsche presents his critique of morality, as well as the concept of “Master and Slave Morality.” He rejects the idea that the morality of an action is determined based on the consequences of the action because he claims that it is impossible for man to know the true consequences of an action. Although one might be able to predict the immediate consequences of an action, it is impossible to know how that action will cause other consequences further into the future. For example, if I were to steal some medicine for my sick mother, this action might seem ethical or “good” considering the immediate consequences. However, what else might happen as a result of this action further into the future? What if in the process of my theft, I accidentally left the back door to the pharmacy unlocked and the pharmacy was cleaned out, and as a result the insurance company was refusing to cover the pharmacy’s losses. To make matters even worse imagine that the family that owned the pharmacy had to declare bankruptcy which led to the family being unable to pay for...

Words: 1263 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

The Essence of Freedom

...During the nineteenth century, slavery was often told from the perspective of white slave owners, who portrayed it as a daily necessity. The plantation owners perceived their slaves as naturally inferior, and destined to be treated as properties. However in 1845, with the publication of the autobiography of a former slave, Frederick Douglass, the time has come when the slaves were able to tell their own stories. In his inspiring narrative, Douglass describes the corruption of slavery and highlights the essence of freedom: what it means to be freed. According to Frederick Douglass there is not only physical freedom but also intellectual freedom. Therefore in order to live truly freely, one must have both physical freedom and intellectual freedom.  The slave owners constrain slaves’ physical freedom by forcing the slaves to submit to the will of their masters. The slave owners also constrain the slaves’ intellectual freedom by keeping the slaves ignorant and illiterate. When Douglass’ mistress Sophia Auld starts to teach him how to read and write, Mr. Auld becomes infuriated. He says, “A nigger should know nothing but to obey his master -- to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world” (78). To the slave owners, they want the slaves to be nothing but laboring machines. They want the slaves to know nothing but the will of their masters. And in that way, the slaves would not recognize slavery as an inhumane institution but accept it as the natural...

Words: 631 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Journal as slaves. He talks about how the meals work, and what they are left over with. As he writes, you can almost hear his expression becoming angrier about how much food they are left with. He then starts talking about stealing food, and other belongings of the master. He seems like the sneakier one out of the other three slaves. He didn’t steal simply because he was hungry, but because he though he deserved it. He thought it was “the result of a clear apprehension of the claims of morality”. He never thought when he took the food it was considered stealing; it was “removal”. The food being “stolen” by Douglass is technically helping the master; it’s going back into Douglass’ labor by keeping him strong and fit. He portrays stealing as right, and what is fair. The master owns him, so what ever else he owns, is the slaves also. At the end of his excerpt he is basically saying, what is to me sounds like, no one owns anything. Douglass mentions that he can rob anyone in slave society because society is robbing him of his liberty. In a free society, people are able to “help themselves” to anything. Him being a slave, his labor paid for what the master has, so which in turn is also his property. Douglass argues that slaves are only property; therefore how can they be held to human moral standards? Stealing was considered the standard for slave society. All of this is very eye opening, and I myself would never think of it this way. In a way I do agree with him because......

Words: 474 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Question of Morality

...Throughout ages of human society, the question of morality has always been hotly debated. Many famous philosophers of iconic lands, such as Socrates, Voltaire, Confucius, and Swami Vivekananda have written and spoken volumes on the meaning of morality and its impact on human society. Their actions and judgments have helped society, such as Socrates impact on Ancient Greece or Vivekananda’s impact on Medieval Indian Society. Because of their actions, the debate of morality has helped us learn from the mistakes of previous generation and societies, and help us build our society today. Clearly, morality is very important to humans. But why is morality so important to us? Perhaps, one reason why morality is so important is because it discriminates between actions that are seemingly “right”, and actions that are seemingly “wrong”. Not only that, but it also helps us handle a dilemma in the best way possible in order to avoid a potentially disastrous situation. For instance, many people consider a “wrong” action to be immoral. One example of action always considered immoral is lying.  In general, many people consider lying, the act of not telling the truth or providing incomplete information, to be immoral. But is it always immoral to lie? Can there be situations where lying can be a moral action to take? At first, I didn’t think so. But after a semester of reading books such as Everything Matters, The White Tiger and Someone Knows My Name along with researching articles on...

Words: 2614 - Pages: 11