In his first essay: ‘Good and Evil’, ‘Good and Bad’ in On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche discusses mankind’s development of morality. The development of morality contained two distinct but related accounts; slave and noble. Slave morality can be easily understood if associated with Judeo-Christian ethics of selfless-ness and utilitarianism. Within slave morality, the weak are seen as ‘good’, and the violent and powerful are seen as ‘evil’. The slave morality was intellectually formulated.
However, the original account of morality was that of the nobles’. Noble morality did not create value-judgments based on what was useful. “Instead it has been ‘the good’ themselves, meaning the noble, the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded, who saw and judged themselves and their actions as ‘good’” (11). The Noble’s morality was spontaneously created and was used only to form a pathos of distance between the powerful (the nobles) and the weak (the slaves) (11). Pathos of distance refers to the value laden distance created to distinguish between two groups. The noble was only concerned with being active and happy (21).
The slave on the other hand was more passive, clever and docile. Slave morality developed in opposition to the nobles and their morality. The slaves, who repeatedly suffered at the hands of the powerful nobles, convinced themselves that being weak was their own choice. Slave morality emerged as the slaves labeled the nobles and their actions as ‘evil’. The slave turned their natural condition of suffering at the hands of others into a condition which should be desired. Humility and selfless-ness were raised as the highest values by the slave. Weakness became ‘good’, and power became ‘evil’. The slaves’ natural passivity forced them to be cleverer than the nobles (21). The slave had to think of a justification for the suffering inherent in their existence. The slave account of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is dialectically opposed to that of the nobles’. The nobles’ account of ‘bad’ is all that the slave embodies; the nobles’ account of ‘good’ is the slaves’ account of ‘evil’. Would a proper morality form as the outcome of a Hegelian dialectic between these two accounts of morality?
Nietzsche’s discussion of noble morality reminds me of the character Alex from A Clockwork Orange (both film and book). In A Clockwork Orange, Alex leads a group of young boys around his city, raping, killing, fighting, and doing as they please. Alex refers to this as “the ultraviolent”. Alex also has an appreciation for aesthetics as he enjoys Ludwig Van Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, especially the 4th movement, commonly known as the Ode to Joy. Alex only has an account of ‘good’. His actions seem to be highly spontaneous. He rarely seems to have a plan of what he will do, he only acts. The closest he gets to forming an idea of what is ‘bad’ is when he discusses how he despises the weakness of a homeless old man. Is Alex a good example of what Nietzsche would consider a noble?
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, Keith Pearson, and Carol Diethe. On the genealogy of morality. Rev. student ed.
I would definitely think that Alex from A Clockwork Orange is a good example of a noble. Nietzsche discusses vanity and believes that vanity is the tool the master or noble uses to make him or herself feel superior to others, their slaves. Therefore, Alex uses his group of youth boys, or some would say minions, to play our his perverse fantasies, desires and see them come to fruition without having to deal with the ideas of good or bad. Moreover, the fact that these boys carry out his tasks it can be argued that they are justifying the actions and therefore making them acceptable socially. Therefore, morality (good or evil) becomes blurred and it’s hard to see which one is which. Alex is using his slaves because they are passive and impressionable. This dialectic relationship of the noble and slave could be seen as the true good versus evil but isn’t it situational? Will it not depend on the noble and slave themselves?
ReplyDelete