"Slave-Morality"

In order to understand the concept of “slave morality” one must first understand how the democratic prejudices of the age eschewed the ideas of “good” and “bad” which created the language of morality. Friedrich Nietzsche states in his first treatise that, “with respect to morality’s genealogy this appears to me to be an essential insight; that it is only now being discovered is due to the inhibiting influence that democratic prejudice exercise in the modern world with regard to all questions of origins.” (Pg. 12) With the “essential insight” being that the concept of “good” did not emerge from a nonegostistic actions, as we currently view it, but rather as a defining concept of being a noble or an aristocrat.

In order to understand “our problem,” Nietzsche inquires where the judgment of “good” originated. He said, “it is of no small interest to discover that often in those words and roots that designate “good” that main nuance still shimmers through with respect to which the nobles felt themselves to be humans of a higher rank.” (Pg. 13) Therefore the good morality was to be brave, noble, knightly, well-born, capable, rich, and strong (esthlos, agathos, arya, being some of the Greek words that translate into the above descriptions.) This morality became a rule where superiority in politics was the same as “superiority of soul,” a standard for truth. Therefore, the inverse was applied to those who did not have a higher political station; they were labeled “bad,” “ugly,” “ill-born,” “base,” “cowardly,” “ignoble.” (Pg. 14) The poor or common man could not say otherwise because the act of naming came only from those with power, which he does not possess. This is what Nietzsche claims, instigated the slave revolt.

For all those that were repressed or conquered, tormented in their lowly station, the Jews that dared to take their revenge on the aristocratic conquerors in an inversion of the “good morality,” or by what Nietzsche calls a spiritual revenge. They said that it is, “The miserable alone are the good; the poor, powerless, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly are also the only pious, the only blessed in God, for them alone is there blessedness.” (Pg. 16) This is what is referred to as the “slave morality;” namely, where the weak or bad justify their lack and invert the bad morality into a good morality. For example, the poor are humble, god chooses the weak, and those that suffer will inherit the earth. It is this reactive attitude and psychology of resentment that reveals what is unappealing and unattractive about slave morality.

Where truth becomes that of a lie, and bitterness it’s sword, slave morality starts a war with “the power-holders.” It grows out of revenge or hate described as, “the deepest and most sublime hate, namely an ideal-creating, value-reshaping hate whose like has never before existed on earth,” but it doesn’t end there. According to Nietzsche, it finds it’s most unappealing form in a “new love” that is “reaching out, as it were, in the realm of light and of height, for the goals of that hate – for victory, for booty, for seduction.” (Pg. 17) This “toxication” spread very successfully until it triumphed over all other ideals, which is its excuse as well. The reason no one remembers this slave revolt in morality was because it was two-thousand-years ago and was forgotten due to its complete victory. (Pg. 18)

“Slave-morality always needs and opposite and external world,” in order to exist. (Pg. 19) In essence the “good” is called “bad” and the “bad” is called “good.” In the beginning, “the well-born” simply felt themselves to be the ‘happy’; they did not first have to construct their happiness artificially by looking at their enemies.” (Pg. 20) Although morality is used in a broader sense by Nietzsche, it is where the paradigm shifts. As stated in his prose, “take a look into the secret of how they fabricate ideals on earth,” which I believe is his entire objective of writing this genealogy of morality. (Pg. 26) Whether it can be historically supported or no, Nietzsche wants the origin of why we think what we do, do what we do, believe what we do, to be questioned so that the problem of value can be solved.