Nietzsche's Moral Reordering

I agree with the Nietzsche’s claim that “Every elevation of the type ‘man’ has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be”. I agreed because in our society those things happen between upper and lower class family. Most of the time upper class family used to dominate and criticize lower class family in each step of their foots. Some time middle class family also cannot leave to dominate lower class family in their each step. Higher-class family has more power, take delight or pleasure in things, and possess more wealth and benefit. Lower class family deprived from all of these things.

In his Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche examines the origins of the pervading moral system of his time to Christian values, which elevate restraint and self-denial. In his writings, Marx attributes societal ills to capitalism and the exploitation of the working class.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s book “On the Genealogy of Morals” critiques and examines the origin of human morals. Nietzsche presents numerous strong arguments in this book against society 's moral implications, however, it is his concepts of slave and master morality which are seen repeatedly. These two concepts of master and slave morality are particularly evident in the movie Fight Club. Although Fight Club is a modern-day movie, its storyline and subject matter reveals that it was heavily influence by Nietzsche’s concept of slave and master morality.

For Nietzsche, “the slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” (Nietzsche 913). This imaginary revenge causes the complete reversal in defining words of class. The resentful slaves and priests looked up at the nobility with anger, characterizing them as selfish, corrupted, abusive and tyrannical, among other things. Ultimately, they came to the conclusion that the nobility were the pinnacle of evil. In doing so, “he has conceived ‘the evil enemy,’ ‘the Evil One,’ and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a ‘good one’—himself!” (Nietzsche 915). Through the venomous eye of ressentiment, the slave class has characterized the good men, those with strong moral character as evil, and in doing so, has

Nietzsche’s first essay refers the nobleman as ‘master morality’ and the lower class as ‘slave morality’ (p.17). Slave morality is recognised for their creative force from ressentiment or resentment. Slave morality defines power as the evil that harms people and states good as being nice and treat each other as equal.

During the late 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche examined the history of morals in his Genealogy of Morals. In his work, Nietzsche reveals the origin of morality, and he goes further to tear down the basis of Christianity and Kant’s Moral Law to show that there is a plurality of conflicting morals in society. Max Weber, who was a philosopher greatly influenced by Nietzsche, writes further on the plurality declaring that there is a polytheism that is the result of many conflicting values. Weber concludes that there is no science of ethics after Nietzsche, so there is no way to determine the “correct” value system. There is currently polytheism and a plurality of values that will not be resolved because all values are valid despite them conflicting

Humanity’s natural aggression means that civilization is “constantly threatened with disintegration” and it must make every effort to ensure these urges are curbed, in order for its continued existence. He continues in this vein, by stating that, in order for people to “forgo the satisfaction of their tendency to aggression” civilization encourages us to form into groups, however for this to work their must continue to be “outsiders,” that the aggression can be turned towards. This is in accordance with On the Genealogy of Morals, where it is the Slaves ascetic nature that forces them to also control their instincts. Likewise, both Freud and Nietzsche assert that these restrictions cause people to internalise their aggressions, turning inward.

Throughout history, humanity has accomplished feats of extraordinary significance; conquering vast expanses of territory, developing technology that would be destined to alter the world for the better. Yet, is humankind homogeneous? Or are there some among us who are predisposed to hold a higher status than all else? During the late 19th century, two great minds pondered this question. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote of an Übermensch, a man who could rise above worldly morality and impose his will upon anything he saw fit. Specifically, the Übermensch is not bound by moral or ethical codes, and he has to power to create his own. Parallel to this idea, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment analyzes the repercussions of one’s actions when said person attempts to dispose himself from the moral guide of society, known as

It does not find its root and origin in objective circumstances; it originates from a place of suppression, of seeking freedom, and most significantly, of ressentiment. Herein the idea Nietzsche proposes is that the slaves are responsive against their noble masters because they are weak and impotent, leading to the festering of hatred and resentment. This means that values culminating from the revolt would be inaccurate in representing the true meaning of “good” or “evil”, because they were formed through the tainted lens of the slaves of ressentiment. They would portray the slaves, the weak, and the powerless as “good” and favourable, while casting the nobles, the masters, and the upperclassmen in an “evil” and malicious light. This inverts the original notion that the nobles are the definition of “good”. Nietzsche expounds this situation by clarifying that the nobles become “blond beast[s]” (Nietzsche, page 128) when out of their familiar circumstances, insinuating that they turn into a barbaric state where they seek victory over those who are inferior to them. In turn, displays of brutality will be expressed, as a by-product of this barbarism and therefore, fulfilling the morality of the nobles as “evil”. Nietzsche also expresses that this form of morality may not always be beneficial; it cages the

Nietzsche introduced an idea of philosophy that was more than simply a rational groundwork of existence or as the pursuit of an absolute truth. Instead, he suggested that philosophy is something to be respected as a personal interpretation of life and all its faculties (morality, existentialism etc.) and that was – for him - focused on life affirmation. Furthermore, this thinking implies that philosophy is not a be all and end all answer to life’s questions; rather, it is merely a

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

That all strive to self-overcome, and in turn, attain freedom, is a fact accepted by Nietzsche. What the thundering philosopher renounces is morality and its ill-mannered objective comprehension of the will to power. This he sees as the culprit who impedes on (modern) man 's ability to understand and attain said power. The perplexity of objectivity and will to freedom is inevitably space from which the concept of morality arises. Nietzsche provides a detailed account of two forms of morality, that of the master and the slave. The individuals who correlate to master morality are characterized as strong individuals with a set of self-manifested which they live in accordance with. The masters think themselves powerful beings and equate this power to the Good. These individuals value create and determine good is that which is noble, good, strong, and powerful. This is affirmed by power and in turn, affirms the beliefs. (Nietzsche 115). Once a definition is ascribed to the concept of Good, the Bad is defined. That which is labeled as the Bad is likened to the weak-will, confused, oppressed individual. These are the individuals who compose the mentally of the slave morality. In likeness to their counterpart, they also long for power but due to subtle suspicion of the masters, attain it differently. Deducing a new set of values of that which is the Good, and declaring it that which is good for the whole. This Good they identify as the practice of patience, humility, pity, and

Friedrich Nietzsche’s own skepticism symbolized the secular changes in contemporary Western civilization, in which he details mankind’s break away from faith into a new rule of chaos. In Book 5 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche establishes that “God is dead”, meaning that modern Europe has abandoned religion in favor of rationality and science (Nietzsche 279). From this death, the birth of a ‘new’ infinite blossoms in which the world is open to an unlimited amount of interpretations that do not rely on the solid foundations of faith in religion or science. However, in contrast to the other philosophers of his age such as Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Nietzsche deviates from the omniscient determinism of history towards a

Friedrich Nietzsche reconceptualized ethics by questioning the foundations of good and evil. He traced the terms back to what he called the development of “noble morality” and “slave morality.” The word “good” is related to the words the Goths, Greeks, and Celts used to describe themselves, an affirmative definition based on the nobility of life. “Bad” is the term for others in noble morality. However, since the development of “slave morality,” the terms were translated in a negative definition that applies to the term “evil” to what was formerly “good” and makes the “bad” become “good.”

The commonly read first essay sees Nietzsche present an opposition between the “master” morality and that of the “slave”. By “tracing” the etymological grounds of the German words schlect (“bad”), gut (good), and bose (evil), Nietzsche forwards the proposition that a distinction between good and bad was born from