Master/slave morality

[Nooj]

Do you believe that the morality of Christianity and Judaism are 'slave moralities' as Nietzsche talks about it (I'm not sure what he would have made of Islam).

To tell you the truth, when I first read this segment, not only was I not convinced, I was offended. Turning the other cheek, being meek and humble, loving one's neighbour and enemies, all virtues in our society, are catastrophic reversals of the master morality, so he argues. For example, say wealth is part of the morality of the masters. The slave's morality will then lead to turning acquisition of wealth from a virtue to an evil.

Did Nietzsche think that the slave morality was an unconscious reaction to their plight, or was it constructed purposefully to oppose their masters?

On a metaphorical level I can understand what he means, because it sort of makes sense with Christianity. But I have a hard time believing that his account of the origins of morality is historically accurate.

 

[Chesterton]

Did Nietzsche think that the slave morality was an unconscious reaction to their plight, or was it constructed purposefully to oppose their masters?

From what I recall he thought it was constructed purposefully to oppose masters, which is one reason he hated it so much. He saw it as deliberately upsetting a natural order.

But the whole idea of slave vs. master morality is a false dichotomy; it's beside the point. The question doesn't even enter into Christianity. One could theoretically (and in practice, historically) be a good Christian master or a good Christian slave. There have been extremely wealthy, powerful men who were good Christians and (by the law of averages, of course) there have been a lot more weak, poor men who've been good Christians.

Reading the New Testament will show you that Christianity does not attack power or wealth themselves. The only thing attacked is sin, and it recognizes something that we all already agree on: that power corrupts, and that it's a lot easier to fall into being sinful when one is rich and/or powerful. Christ was revolutionary, but in no way was he a revolutionary against any particular social order; Nietzsche just invented a complaint which isn't there.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think you missed the point on "master morality." The masters don't have morality, they don't need morality. They know that they are strong, that they can do as they please. They know that what they are is good, it is pleasant and desirable to be as they are. Then they see the slaves, the meek, the conquered, the sickly, the ugly, and they see that what they have and what they are is bad. These are not moral judgments.

Chesterton, I think I have to disagree with your analysis there. If you're pretty familiar with the gospels, you can pretty easily make the case that Jesus opposed the virtues of the masters: strength, healthy, power, wealth, and virility. Blessed are the poor, the meek, all that. Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, if your hand is your problem, lop it off (it's pretty clear the hand isn't meant). Whatever the theology eventually said, on a very real level, the teachings of Jesus are nihilistic in the sense that he does not at all favor anything in this world.

Nooj, if you're familiar with Plato, this is a what Nietzsche cites as an origin of slave morality. It's a bit complicated, but it has to do with favoring a "true" world over this world, the idea being that the true world is one of abstraction and wisdom, and that it's foolish to value the good things of this world.

 

[Nooj]

I think you missed the point on "master morality." The masters don't have morality, they don't need morality. They know that they are strong, that they can do as they please. They know that what they are is good, it is pleasant and desirable to be as they are. Then they see the slaves, the meek, the conquered, the sickly, the ugly, and they see that what they have and what they are is bad. These are not moral judgments.

So these are aesthetic judgements? The slaves are not 'beautiful', not in the sense of physical characteristics but the way that the Greeks understood it.

Nooj, if you're familiar with Plato, this is a what Nietzsche cites as an origin of slave morality. It's a bit complicated, but it has to do with favoring a "true" world over this world, the idea being that the true world is one of abstraction and wisdom, and that it's foolish to value the good things of this world.

So those who are weak and underprivileged in life would hate this world and seek something beyond it. Why would Plato make something up like this though? He hardly strikes me as an underprivileged guy.

What did Nietzsche think the slaves should have done? I think he thinks their morality is not for the masters, but what about those who are not aristocrats?

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton, I think I have to disagree with your analysis there. If you're pretty familiar with the gospels, you can pretty easily make the case that Jesus opposed the virtues of the masters: strength, healthy, power, wealth, and virility. Blessed are the poor, the meek, all that. Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, if your hand is your problem, lop it off (it's pretty clear the hand isn't meant). Whatever the theology eventually said, on a very real level, the teachings of Jesus are nihilistic in the sense that he does not at all favor anything in this world.

No it's not right to say Jesus doesn't favor anything in this world. I mean I know what you're thinking, but it's just wrong to say that he doesn't favor any good thing, including good human virtues.

You're right that Christianity opposes those things as posited by Nietzsche (that they are good because they're willed by strong men), but that's not the same as opposing them altogether. My point was that Nietzsche was wrong to see Christianity as reactionary, as if it were a response to master morality. I still say the idea of master morality is beside the point, because Christianity is not a moral or ethical plan, just as it is also not a social scheme or political program. (On that point, some Christians, with Liberation Theology for example, make the same mistake Nietzsche did.) And consider that Nietzsche's complaint was the opposite of Karl Marx's: while Nietzsche thought Christianity led to the lowly opposing the aristocrats, Marx thought it was the opiate which made the lowly docile and submissive to the aristocrats. They can't both be right, and they're not; they're both wrong. In a hypothetically perfect Christian world, you'd still have greater men and lesser men, but the strong are not to lord it over the weak, and the weak are not to envy the strong. Love is the answer.

 

[The Nihilist]

Actually, I think Marx and Nietzsche are more or less in agreement; they both feel that christianity helps the weak deal with their unenviable lot in life.
While theologically Nietzsche may (or may not) be incorrect, if you take Jesus at his word, it's a lot harder to argue with Nietzsche.
In no sense is Nietzsche an ethicist. He seemed to be entirely uninterested in the morality of the servants and slaves. His main interest seems to be the differences in values, and which system of values came out on top.
I don't recall specifics, but I'm under the impression that Socrates, or at least Plato, was old, poor, ugly, and weak. Hardly the Greek ideal.

 

[BobW188]

If I recall correctly, Socrates was notoriously ugly and certainly not rich. Whether he lived long enough to be old, I don't think we know. He worked with stone, which suggests he was no weakling.
I was taught that "Plato" was a nickname given because he was broad shouldered, again suggesting no weakling. Unlike Socrates, he "did philosohy" for a living and the Academy presumably made him a decent living.

 

[Received]

Nietzsche has a metaphor of Christian humility that encapsulates his view of Christianity: he imagines a worm curling up when it's in view of being attacked. Well, obviously he's mistaken. Christianity doesn't espouse humility as a defense mechanism, but as a chosen path to negate the dangers of pride. Now, people may use it as a defense mechanism (they're humble because they're weak people), but that's not the teaching. The Greek term for "meekness" actually specifies a muzzle -- self-muzzling what your inclinations might otherwise want to do. Question: is that something that weak people do, something that's easy, or does it take a bit of willfulness to pull it off? Well, do we call people who abuse their wives strong?

Humility is the hardest thing in the world to pull off precisely because our immediate inclinations are for pride.

 

[Received]

If I recall correctly, Socrates was notoriously ugly and certainly not rich. Whether he lived long enough to be old, I don't think we know. He worked with stone, which suggests he was no weakling.
I was taught that "Plato" was a nickname given because he was broad shouldered, again suggesting no weakling. Unlike Socrates, he "did philosohy" for a living and the Academy presumably made him a decent living.

Nietzsche loathed Socrates, in particular because his death, for N, signified escapism: Socrates was happy to die; he chose it. Escapism can also be applied to Plato's view of the Forms. It leads to the belief that this world isn't really the real one, therefore dive inward and escape from it through thinking. But Nietzsche was all about accepting life as it is, as well as one's fate with relation to it. Amor fati: love of fate.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It has seemed to me that Christian ethics is similar to Cynicism, or perhaps Stoicism. I don't know if Christian ethics arose from such influences, or if the flavor of such philosophies was used to appeal to the Hellenists. Did N notice such a connection? Did he have any thoughts on this? If not, what might he have thought?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Well, I think Nietzsche's amor fati is quite Stoic, if you think about it -- in the sense that it involves adapting one's will to the universe. I don't think Nietzsche holds Stoicism and Christianity on comparable ground; Christianity for him was essentially about escaping to a next world and a medium for ressentiment (ideally through threats of condemnation to Hell) regarding those who don't follow it, while Stoicism is about adapting to this world. Of course, Nietzsche wasn't a fan of metaphysics, so that is a limitation of Stoicism. I guess an important point is to note that Christianity to Nietzsche (presumably a reflection of his contempt for weak-minded, weak-willed Christians he ran across) and Christianity as you or I understand it are two different things.

 

[Gracchus]

The master does as he pleases. The slave also does as the master pleases, and does it cheerfully or gets stomped. That is the world as it was and as it is. For the slave, it is obey, and be seen to obey cheerfully, or even the little the slave may have will be taken away.

It does no good to fight the system. One can change masters but the system remains. That is the moral of Orwell's "Animal Farm". If you kick out Farmer Brown the pigs take over. The slave has the choice: Obey and survive, or resist and be destroyed painfully.

You might as well enjoy your crumbs while the masters feast.

 

[Gracchus]

The master does as he pleases. The slave also does as the master pleases, and does it cheerfully or gets stomped. That is the world as it was and as it is. For the slave, it is obey, and be seen to obey cheerfully, or even the little the slave may have will be taken away.

It does no good to fight the system. One can change masters but the system remains. That is the moral of Orwell's "Animal Farm". If you kick out Farmer Brown the pigs take over. The slave has the choice: Obey and survive, or resist and be destroyed painfully.

You might as well enjoy your crumbs while the masters feast.

 

[Gracchus]

The master does as he pleases. The slave also does as the master pleases, and does it cheerfully or gets stomped. That is the world as it was and as it is. For the slave, it is obey, and be seen to obey cheerfully, or even the little the slave may have will be taken away.

It does no good to fight the system. One can change masters but the system remains. That is the moral of Orwell's "Animal Farm". If you kick out Farmer Brown the pigs take over. The slave has the choice: Obey and survive, or resist and be destroyed painfully.

You might as well enjoy your crumbs while the masters feast.

 

[Gracchus]

"Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." --- Karl Marx

The Preacher and the Slave​

By
Joe Hill​

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:​

Chorus:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.​

2. And the starvation army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray.
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:​

Chorus:​

3. Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,
And they holler, they jump and they shout.
"Give your money to Jesus," they say,
"He will cure all diseases today."​

Chorus:​

4. If you fight hard for children and wife--
Try to get something good in this life-
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.​

Chorus:​

5. Workingmen of all countries, unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight:
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:​

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.​

 

[The Nihilist]

It has seemed to me that Christian ethics is similar to Cynicism, or perhaps Stoicism. I don't know if Christian ethics arose from such influences, or if the flavor of such philosophies was used to appeal to the Hellenists. Did N notice such a connection? Did he have any thoughts on this? If not, what might he have thought?


eudaimonia,

Mark

And thus, Mark reveals his secret desire to be a TA in a second year philosophy of ethics class

But seriously, if one wants to make an educated guess regarding what Nietzsche would have thought of stoicism, I think his commentary on Buddhism in The Antichrist is pretty telling. Long story short, he thought it was nihilistic in the same way that christianity is, but much more honest.

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, I think Nietzsche's amor fati is quite Stoic, if you think about it -- in the sense that it involves adapting one's will to the universe. I don't think Nietzsche holds Stoicism and Christianity on comparable ground; Christianity for him was essentially about escaping to a next world and a medium for ressentiment (ideally through threats of condemnation to Hell) regarding those who don't follow it, while Stoicism is about adapting to this world. Of course, Nietzsche wasn't a fan of metaphysics, so that is a limitation of Stoicism. I guess an important point is to note that Christianity to Nietzsche (presumably a reflection of his contempt for weak-minded, weak-willed Christians he ran across) and Christianity as you or I understand it are two different things.

I think Nietzsche disdains elements of christianity that you hold quite dear. Compassion, love of neighbor, sexual morality, obedience to God, heaven as an ideal, all that stuff.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, I think Marx and Nietzsche are more or less in agreement; they both feel that christianity helps the weak deal with their unenviable lot in life.
While theologically Nietzsche may (or may not) be incorrect, if you take Jesus at his word, it's a lot harder to argue with Nietzsche.
In no sense is Nietzsche an ethicist. He seemed to be entirely uninterested in the morality of the servants and slaves. His main interest seems to be the differences in values, and which system of values came out on top.

But Jesus was also not an ethicist, and as I say, was not interested in morality per se. Jesus was not of this world, so what system of values come out on top in this world is not his primary concern. Jesus's exaltation of the lowly has very little to do with their earthly status - it has to with men's ability to ultimately come to God (which is what Jesus was here for - for men to come to God, not just to change a world system).

Throughout the Old Testament you'll see the idea of pride vs. humility; that the Lord will hear the prayer of a man with a broken heart, and the Lord will not hear the prayer of a proud man (the idea is expressed many ways in different places but I just boiled it down to a general idea here). When Christ says blessed are the poor, and those who mourn, etc., he's not expressing how the world ought to be; he's expressing how the world in fact is, from divine perspective. From the divine perspective, from the Christian perspective, only a fool would actually wish to be an aristocrat. Jesus wasn't an agitator, he didn't say "the least should be greatest"; he's the Decider, he said "the least shall be greatest".

 

[The Nihilist]

Don't you see? That's exactly what would appeal to someone who hated aristocrats and was abused by them. Nietzsche takes yours as a religion founded on resentment.

 

[Chesterton]

Don't you see? That's exactly what would appeal to someone who hated aristocrats and was abused by them. Nietzsche takes yours as a religion founded on resentment.

If that's true then show me in the New Testament, or in any ECF, where any type of social revolution was expressed. What you'll find is actually the opposite: "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "respect those in power over you, because God has ordained them" and "pray for those in authority". If I were looking for a belief system to take on the ruling class, I certainly wouldn't look to Christianity.