Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between religion and morality
Friedrich nietzsche slave morality
What does nietzsche mean by slave morality and master their origins and characteristics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The relationship between religion and morality
In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c... ... middle of paper ... ...y. While understanding that Master Morality and Slave Morality are just the basis of what makes up all Morals and just as though our values where made of interchangeable parts we mix and match what feels right and what works for us as individuals. These basic morals that we tend to identify with will dictate how we align ourselves politically, socially, and religiously; because there is not a true ruling class or ruled class it is difficult to see the blurred lines that separate us morally. This is a product of our Democratic government that ensures our freedoms to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but in turn does allow there to be such a dramatic difference between the wealthiest and the poorest of people. The system is not perfect but what makes it wonderful is the ability to adapt and change with the times and to improve itself for the benefit of all.
Economic injustice and oppression occur because someone benefits from them. It is in the interest of someone to create and perpetuate oppressions (pg. 17). If these groups of people that are oppressed were not pitted against one another, an uprising of phenomenal proportions could occur. This is exactly what the rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual able-bodied society (a.k.a.: The Norm) does not want to happen! Racism, sexism, and classism are necessities for the survival of The Norm.
Another way to define “Master Morality” and “Slave Morality” is by defining a person’s culture. A persons culture defines their upbringing which moles their behavior and opinion (that also gives them different views on good and evil). The author recognizes both “Master” and “Slave” as humans with different back stories and different view on the same issues even if they lived close together. For instance, every religion has one basic concept not to harm the other. Yet each individual that interprets the text (even if they are from the same religion) defines it differently because of their upbringing or personal background. The religion itself is similar to both “Master and Slave Morality” but the understanding of the text is different because of their own personal thoughts (because every person is unique) which creates the difference between the
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
Nietzsche's master-slave morality describes the way in which moral norms shifted through the through eras, from pre-scocratic times to the modern age founded upon Christian and Jewish beliefs. During pre-socratic times, value was dominated and enacted by the master class, who saw themselves and what they did as good. Value was defined along their terms of good- what was good for the master class was itself good. This notion of value was designed along the lines of nobility and purity, which included traits such as courage, beauty, strong-will and happiness. The master-class said yes to existence, and their values affirmed their belief system, which, due to their position of control, created their disposition as elite and influenced the norms for morality at their time. Since the master-class viewed themselves as good, they distinguished themselves from the weaker individuals, those not in power, as bad. The weaker individuals, in pre-socratic times known as plebeians, according to the master-class, were weaker for various reasons. Be it due to their unhappiness, victimization to unfortunate circumstances, weak-will or a lack of courage, pride, or a combination of any of these despicable or non virtuous values. According to the master-class, adherence to these weak values initiated a form of fear within the plebeian, which created a lack of self worth and a lack of freedom or self-consciousness, deemed as slavery.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a German philosopher, believed there are two different moralities; master and slave morality. For Nietzsche, a morality is a set of value judgements. These moralities define a person not only by their actions, but how they handle these certain situations throughout their daily life. I believe Nietzsche chose these two moralities as they are strong opposites that are rational. The distinction between "master morality" and "slave morality" are easy to be misunderstand.
Friedrich Nietzsche is recognized for being one of the most influential German philosophers of the modern era. He is known for his works on genealogy of morality, which is a way to study values and concepts. In Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche mentions that values and concepts have a history because of the many different meanings that come with it. Nietzsche focused on traditional ethical theories, especially those rooted in religion. Not being a religious man, he believed that human life has no moral purpose except for the significance that human beings give it. People from different backgrounds and circumstances in history bend morality's meaning, making it cater to the norms of their society. For example, the concept of what is "good" in the ancient Greek culture meant aristocratic, noble, powerful, wealthy, pure, but not in modern era. Meaning, in the past the term “good” was not applied to a kind of act that someone did but rather applied to the kind of person and background they had. Nietzsche’s project was to help expand one’s understanding by re-examining morality through genealogy of morality; helping one to be more aware of a potential confusion in moral thinking. He feels that the current values and concepts that have been instilled into a society are a reversal of the truth, forcing him to believe that one’s moral systems had to have been created within society. In the works of genealogy of morality, Nietzsche traces out the origins of the concepts of guilt and bad conscience, which will be the main focal point, and explaining its role in Nietzsche’s project against morality. It will be argued that guilt and bad conscience goes against Nietzsche’s role against morality because it can conflict with the moral co...
I also think that the difference between the two types of moralities mentioned in the text book by Nietzsche are that the master morality makes its personal values and stands beyond good and evil, whereas, slave morality values kind-heartedness, meekness, and compassion. The master exceeds the weakness of the ordinary individual. Dylan, I do agree with you that in the long time you find yourself with more master morality and some slave molarity as well. As for me I would say I am a mixture of the two because under slave morality I hold to the standard that are advantageous to the feeble or powerless and under master morality I create my own values out of strength. On the other hand, Co-occurrence of the two moralities is not possible because
The feeling of inferior and superior, rich and poor, high caste and low caste does exist in my society. In my country Nepal, we still have the group of people who call themselves as high castes and they do not touch or eat anything that is touched by so called low caste people. As a result, these people have to change their caste in order to keep themselves away from such discriminations. Regarding rich and poor, we can still see that poor people sometimes ends up working in rich people house and there these poor people are really treated as slaves, even in today 's world. Why? Just because they do not have money or property? Now, after all, these readings and personal thoughts; back then, when Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal", and he himself had started following this phrase in right way and gave freedom to slaves then today I believe I would not be in this society where these discriminations still
Society today is split in many different ways: the smart and the dumb, the pretty and the ugly, the popular and the awkward, and of course the rich and the poor. This key difference has led to many areas of conflict among the population. The rich and the poor often have different views on issues, and have different problems within their lives. Moral decay and materialism are two issues prevalent among the wealthy, while things such as socio-economic class conflict and the American dream may be more important to those without money. Ethics and responsibilities are an area of thought for both classes, with noblesse oblige leaning more towards the wealthy.
One’s morals set in place the actions they see as proper and improper in their current society. Individuals in the same socioeconomic settings tend to overlap and correspond to each other. Other times morals are nonexistent or different due to one’s upbringing and culture, this means that ‘appropriate’ decisions as seen by some people may be seen as ‘inappropriate’ to others. Evil in terms of morals can be defined as someone 's morals being so extreme or nonexistent when compared to those of modern society 's views that they can not be logically comprehended.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
Where Kant’s system is based on a set of principles or duties, Nietzsche’s system is based on virtue. Nietzsche is critical of Christianity in general and its evaluation of morality. In the reevaluation of values, he shows how the characteristics of morality in Christianity are more prohibitive of living virtuously than those of Ancient Greece, which include strength, confidence, sexuality, and creativity. In Christianity, those values are pity, shame, asexuality, and humility. The set of values of Ancient Greece is considered Master Morality and the values of deontology is considered to be Slave Morality. Master morality is a step in the right direction for morality but still not the
What is morality? There are many different views on what morality really is, but the one I find to be closest to the truth is Nietzsche’s view. Nietzsche completely reevaluated all of the values tied to morality and concluded that there is little true value in this world. Morality has always seemed to be complex and always been kept in a very limited “box”. Nietzsche goes beyond the normal limits and out of the “box” morality has been kept in. Nietzsche believed that there is no truth, just beliefs. Morality is just another belief. All beliefs are just interpretations or ways of looking at the world. Everything is a perspective. How I might view morality or what I might consider to be moral may be and probably will be very different from how someone else’s views. Nietzsche does not think we truly understand morality or the history of it. This is primarily where he believes other philosophers have gone wrong when trying to understand and describe what morality is. Nietzsche says, “As is the hallowed custom with philosophers, the thinking of all them is by nature unhistorical…” (Nietzsche, 25). Nietzsche believed that historically there were two types of morality: slave morality and master morality. Nietzsche says that, “It was out of this pathos of distance that they first seized the right to create values and to coin names for values…” (Nietzsche, 26). How we view morality now along with many other things has changed over the course of time. Nietzsche calls this conceptual transformation. Nietzsche says, “Thus one also imagined that punishment was devised for punishment. But purposes and utilities are only signs that a will to power has become master of something less powerful and imposed upon it the character of a function…” (Nie...
The Objectivity and Rationality of Morality According to Kant morality is rational and objective. It is based on
I used to think that religion made people good and that they were so moral because they were always following God commands, especially the bible and the Ten Commandments that basically says what is right and what it is wrong, what to do and what not to do. Even though I have never been a big religious person myself, I saw as something normal the idea that following the commands can make you a good person. But then I realize that I never took the time to think more deeply about the topic. I have some questions and even though I am sure they have already been answered, I am going to try to answer them. Could someone be a person moral with not religion? Knowing the answer of this question whether it is yes, or no, would lead to other questions like: the relationship between religion and ethics? And last but surely not least. Does religion provide a good foundation for making decisions in biomedical ethics?