Explain and Assess Nietzsche's Master and Slave Moralities

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of Friedrich Nietzsche's distinction between master and slave moralities, central to his work 'On the Genealogy of Morality.' It elucidates the characteristics of master morality, emphasizing power, nobility, and the creation of values, contrasting it with slave morality, which arises from ressentiment and prioritizes utility and the subversion of the masters' values. The essay examines the historical and psychological underpinnings of these moral systems, exploring concepts such as 'good' and 'evil' as defined by each, and the role of ressentiment in shaping slave morality. It highlights how slave morality inverts master morality's values, emphasizing concepts like kindness and humility. The essay also considers the impact of these moralities on Western thought and culture. It analyzes how the struggle between these two moral structures informs a culture's language, codes, practices, narratives, and institutions. The essay references Nietzsche's arguments and provides context for understanding his critique of traditional morality and his vision of the will to power.

Essay
Explain and assess Nietzsche
distinction between Master and
Slave Moralities

Table of Contents
ESSAY.............................................................................................................................................1
Explain and assess Nietzsche distinction between master and slave moralities.........................1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

ESSAY
Explain and assess Nietzsche distinction between master and slave moralities
Nietzsche is acknowledged to be an aphoristic writer. However this term is not enough to
describe the writing styles as well as forms adopted by him. On the contrary, it is seen that the
quantity of genuine or actual aphorisms put to use in his works are relatively less. In fact,
majority of the aphorisms of Nietzsche are identified as being significant paragraphs that
demonstrate an accumulated thought process (Leiter, 2014). It is from these that the bigger
structures are created. In this relation, it has further been identified that style of writing of
Nietzsche is inferred as being quite distinct from the basic academic form of writings and from
the works of other philosophical writers whose description is given by Nietzsche in a
condescending way in the book 'Beyond Good and Evil'. With reference to this, the main aim of
Nietzsche is recognised as energizing and enliven the philosophical style via a mix of aphoristic
literary forms (Hunt, 2015).
In the initial three essays of which the Genealogy is acknowledged to be comprised,
Nietzsche invites people to make imagination of a society which has been segmented within 2
different groups of individuals. One of these group is termed as “masters” who are militarily as
well as politically dominant personnel (Schacht, 2013). The other kind of group is identified as
“slaves” upon which the masters are recognised to be exercising their total control. The masters
are thus acknowledged to be that part of this model which is active, powerful, unreflective. These
individuals carry out of a life which is full of close physical self affirmation. These personnel are
found to be wench, hunting, brawling, drinking, etc. These individuals are found to be strong
enough to carry out their lives in a joyful and cherishing manner (Williams, 2001). The masters
make use of the term 'Good' for referring to their lifestyle in an approving manner and
demonstrating that they are the only ones who have the capability to lead such lives. Apart from
this, it has been determined that they also make use of the term 'Bad' for comprehensively
pointing out towards the individuals who are slaves. In addition to this, these kind of personnel
are acknowledged to be incapable of living the life which is full of physical self affirmation
owing to virtue of their weaknesses (Wollenberg, 2013). In this way, it has been inferred that the
terms good as well as bad comprehensively form the foundation of a distinct set of ‘masters’
moralities’.
1

One amongst the most significant events of Western History takes place in an instance
whereby the slaves are found to be revolting as against the masters (Hatab, 2008). The slaves are
not just physically weak as well as oppressed but also their weaknesses restrain them from
looking upon themselves along with their lives in a positive manner. These individuals are seen
to generate a negative and reactive kind of feeling against the masters who are oppressive and
powerful as pointed out by Nietzsche (Richardson, 2009). This is referred to as ressentiment by
him and this is known to finally become innovative as well as creative, empowering the slaves in
a manner such that they become strong enough to take revenge from their masters in their
imagination, whom they are in reality very weak to take any action against or hurt in a physical
way. In this relation, the manner in which this revenge is eventually executed is known to give
rise to a new concept that is referred to as 'Evil'. Evil is a term which is usually put to use for the
purpose of referring to the lives carried out by the masters that is called 'good' by them, however,
this is referred to in a disapproving manner. It has been analysed that the term evil is quite
common within the slave morality (Pearson and et. al., 2006).
The slaves may come down to a pale semblance of self-affirmation only via the
observation of the fact that they are not like the ‘evil’ masters. In accordance with the ideology
as well as words of slaves, it can be comprehensively stated that good refers not to a life of
robust vitality, but to the life which is not evil in any kind of way, which implies a life which is
not similar to the lives sustained by the masters. Via multiple further inventions of concepts, the
slaves are identified to be stylizing their natural weaknesses into the outcome of a choice for
which they may demand moral credits (Janaway, 2007). With reference to this, it is identified
that Western morality has conventionally been a struggle amidst the elements which owe their
derivation to a generic form of valuation from masters as well as slaves.
Master – slave morality is identified as the central theme of the works of Friedrich
Nietzsche, especially in the first essay of the book written by him named “On the Genealogy of
Morality.” In the book, he has argued that there are basically two main kinds of morality named
slave and master (Pippin, 2006). With reference to this, the former gives value to kindness,
sympathy and empathy while the latter gives due consideration to power and pride. As per the
thinking exhibited by Nietzsche, a morality is said to be inseparable from the culture which
values it, meaning that each culture's language, codes, practices, narratives, and institutions are
informed by the struggle between these two moral structures (May, 2011).
2

In accordance with the ideology and thought process of Nietzsche, it is acknowledged
that master morality has been described by him as a morality which is held by the individuals
having strong will. He is critical of the ideology aligned with British that good is everything
which is deemed to be helpful, and bad is everything which is deemed to be destructive or
harmful (Acampora, 2006). He has put forth the argument that the advocates of this ideology
have forgotten the origin of its values and it is just based upon a non critiqued acceptance of a
habit that what is regarded to be useful is termed good, thus usefulness is considered to be
goodness as a value. Further, he has put forth the explanation that within the prehistoric
state,"the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences", however, finally,
"there are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena." For the men
having a strong will, the term good refers to the hefty, mighty and noble. On the contrary, for
them, the term bad refers to the cowardly, inferior, fearful and debilitated (Knobe and Leiter,
2007).
The essence of master morality is said to be nobility. The other traits which are often
apparent and given consideration within the master morality are said to be truthfulness,
trustworthiness, open-mindedness, courageousness and a sense of self worth. In addition to this,
it has been determined that master morality begins within the noble man with the help of an
instant idea of the good, followed by the development of the idea of bad in terms of what is not
considered to be good (Hatab, 2008). "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining
values; it does not need approval; it judges, "what is harmful to me is harmful in itself"; it knows
itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating." Within this kind of
morality, personnel define what is considered to be good in accordance with whether it provides
benefit to an individual along with their pursuit of self defined personal excellence. What is
considered helpful to the strong will men is what is valued by him in himself. Thus, strong will
men give value to such things as good as these things provide assistance to them in the prolonged
procedure of self actualisation via the will to power (Clark and Dudrick, 2007).
As per Nietzsche, masters are acknowledged to be the creators of morality and slaves just
react to the master morality by leveraging their slave morality. Distinct from master morality,
slave morality is dependent upon ressentiment which means devaluing that which the master
values and the slave does not have. It is analysed that slave morality originates within the weak
while master morality originates within the strong (Leiter, 2009). It can be comprehensively
3

stated that slave morality is nothing but just a response to the oppression. It is contrary to master
morality. In addition to this, it is not aimed at exerting one's will by strength but by careful
subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The
essence of slave morality is utility: The good is what is most useful for the whole community,
not just the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number,
compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing
that the causes of slavery are "evil", as are the qualities the weak originally could not choose
because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that
their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master (Leiter, 2007).
Slave morality are the sour grapes that are made into a values system. It condemns
strengths which hated masters comprises as well as praises the weakness that are within them
(Katsafanas, 2016). In “On the Genealogy of Morality” which is famous publication of
Nietzsche, slaves are characterised as self negating, impotent, weak and reactive that makes
attempts to free themselves against imprisonment of own inferiority. In addition to this, it is
acknowledged that slave morality is concerned with re-sentiment that devalues what is values by
master morality. In other words, slave morality is a kind of morality created by weak in
retaliation against noble together with strong and are sensed to be evil (Katsafanas, 2016). As per
the ideology and thoughts presented by Nietzsche, it is pure Judeo- Christian morality which
says no to all things on globe which represents ascending tendency of life that turned into power,
beauty and self affirmation. It is termed to the traits such as true Independence of thoughts,
egoism as well as aggressiveness which are evil attributes as they are masters of community.
Everything which help slaves in receiving few crumbs from oppressors, pity and charity
are likewise canonised. The main essence of such morality is utility which is mostly used for
whole society rather for strong ones. Nietzsche says that vanity is hallmark of powerless along
with meek which cry for good opinion of themselves and fails to set own values. The people who
practices such morality are considered as lowest group of population in society which are
uncertain about themselves (Leiter, 2019). It is key morality of utility as goodness for its
adherents is something which is advantageous for those who are powerless as well as weak. It
encourages weakness of quality and based on the note that it preaches virtues related to kindness,
love, friendliness and patience. The morality values more about mediocre group over superior
person. It allows hatred to grow and rely more on secrets and scheming. It is also based on the
4

aspect that person of resentment becomes more cleverer than other noble person (Katsafanas,
2016). However, it is analysed that first experience of slave is not fullest to life rather the terror
at disagreeable person. Slaves have competence to gain power via corrupting the powerful
believing that causes of slavery are evil.
Nietzsche says in his famous publication that slave morality is morality of underclass
because main focus of it is towards collectivisation, forgiveness together with herd-mentality.
They tend to emphasis towards one's intentions due to lack of influence and power. It originates
to weak as it is reaction to oppression which villianises its oppressors. It have no aim to exert
one's will through strength rather by careful subversion (Katsafanas, 2016). The morality so not
seek towards transcending masters rather makes masters slaves as well. Slave morality is timid
addition to favour limited existence. It promotes virtues which serves to ease existence of the
people that suffers. Within slave morality, evil refers to tending to encourage fear while good
symbolise tends to ease suffering (Pearson and et. al., 2006). It was thought of Nietzsche that
purest form of this type of morality was to be found in teaching of Christian culture and defines
that Beatitudes best expressed the core ideas of morality. It was more praised to assist for
fostering internal life of an individual as master morality requires limited reflection to develop it.
Slave morality arises within opposed that have potential to express when their will to power is
blocked. Slave revolt initiates when resentment becomes creative as well as gives beginning to
values (Wollenberg, 2013). At the time when every noble morality develops from triumphant
affirmation, slave morality says no for what is outside, not itself, different and its creative deed.
The slaves themselves cannot achieve anything in life.
In the publication “On the Genealogy of Morality”, Nietzsche said slave morality roots
from rejection of master morality as well as arises solely as reaction, counter weight, etc. to those
concerned with master morality (Williams, 2001). It is against concept of inherent hierarchy
along with holds the thought that morality is identical for all. As compared to master morality,
slave morality is more cynical addition to weak willed. Slaves naturally perceive superiority of
masters which explains the reasons slaves more fear and feel more uncomfortable with masters
(Prinz, 2016). At the time when slave morality is at holding position then inferior ones are
allotted “moral” licence for the purpose of brainwashing as well as persecuting ones who makes
efforts for willing to power. In contrary master morality originates in strong, slave morality
originates in weak. In accordance to the morality, slaves are collectivity of ungifted addition to
5

untalented attributes that are poor on health, stamina, energy, spirit, physical and sexual
attractiveness. These are perceived as constant burden on themselves. They seeks justice and
rewards in coming life rather than the one in which they are living. Slave morality is response to
oppression which villianises unpleasant person. It is developed in opposition to the things which
master morality values as best or good.
As per the thoughts and ideology exhibited by Nietzsche, it has been determined that
slave morality is seen as imminent danger for modern community. It is nay saying attitude that
affirms passivity, humility and dependence. The desire of slaves to become masters in
unattainable as slaves resort to avenge themselves on masters through radically inverting values.
It is believed by the personality that salve morality decreases everyone to common level,
prevents development of higher category of person and favours mediocrity (Prinz, 2016).
However, the morality was critiques by Nietzsche. One of critique of this kind of morality is that
morality specific content including selflessness, equality together with antagonism against
excellence are not life enhancing as these are untenable. The morality evaluates behaviours in
context of negative as well as positive dichotomies that are also untenable (Leiter, 2014).
Furthermore, duties and obligations that are imposed by traditional morality on followers are
unconditional in nature that are equally unsustainable.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Williams, R.R., 2001. Hegel and Nietzsche: recognition and master/slave. Philosophy
Today, 45(Supplement), pp.164-179.
Leiter, B., 2014. Nietzsche on morality. Routledge.
Hunt, L.H., 2015. Beyond Master and Slave: Developing a Third Paradigm. The Journal of Value
Inquiry, 49(3), pp.353-367.
Hatab, L.J., 2008. Nietzsche's' On the Genealogy of Morality': An Introduction. Cambridge
University Press.
Richardson, J., 2009. Nietzsche’s Freedoms. Nietzsche on freedom and autonomy, pp.127-149.
Wollenberg, D., 2013. Nietzsche, Spinoza, and the Moral Affects. Journal of the History of
Philosophy, 51(4), pp.617-649.
Schacht, R., 2013. Nietzsche's Genealogy.
Pippin, R.B., 2006. Agent and deed in Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals. A companion to
Nietzsche, p.371.
Janaway, C., 2007. Beyond selflessness: reading Nietzsche's Genealogy. Oxford University
Press.
Pearson, K.A., Babich, B., Blondel, E., Conway, D., Gemes, K., Habermas, J., Kemal, S., Loeb,
P.S., Migotti, M., Müller-Lauter, W. and Nehamas, A., 2006. Nietzsche's On the
genealogy of morals: critical essays. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Knobe, J. and Leiter, B., 2007. The case for Nietzschean moral psychology. Nietzsche and
morality, pp.83-109.
Acampora, C.D., 2006. Naturalism and Nietzsche’s moral psychology. A companion to
Nietzsche, p.314.
May, S. ed., 2011. Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality: a critical guide. Cambridge
University Press.
Clark, M. and Dudrick, D., 2007. Nietzsche and moral objectivity: The development of
Nietzsche’s metaethics. Nietzsche and morality, pp.192-226.
Hatab, L.J., 2008. Nietzsche's' On the Genealogy of Morality': An Introduction. Cambridge
University Press.
Katsafanas, P., 2016. The Nietzschean self: Moral psychology, agency, and the unconscious.
Oxford University Press.
Leiter, B., 2007. Morality critics.
Leiter, B., 2009. Nietzsche’s Theory of the Will. Nietzsche on Freedom and Autonomy, pp.107-
126.
Leiter, B., 2019. Moral Psychology with Nietzsche. Oxford University Press.
7

Katsafanas, P., 2016. The Nietzschean self: Moral psychology, agency, and the unconscious.
Oxford University Press.
Prinz, J., 2016. Genealogies of Morals: Nietzsche's Method Compared. Journal of Nietzsche
Studies, 47(2), pp.180-201.
8