On the craft of morality

Each one of us has a set of beliefs and there are many aspects of these beliefs that quite often go unchallenged, unquestioned. For example, most of us, if not all, see kindness and sympathy as a virtue. Most of us think that freedom is better than slavery, or equality is better than inequality. These are the beliefs which we never question, challenge or ponder over. The line of thinking that involuntarily comes to mind is that how could inequality be better than equality. Such line of thinking, to our psyche, persistently appears so obvious, rational and therefore, unshakable. 

But nothing could be farther from truth. In On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche argues that all moralities are designed and they serve the purpose of those who created that morality. There are fundamentally two types of people who create moral values: masters and slaves. According to Nietzsche, in ancient Greek and Roman societies, the predominant morality was that created by the masters. In those societies, the elites or aristocrats, in accordance with their practical circumstances, valued “nobility, strength and power” over “weakness, cowardice and timidity”. They considered it a good thing to perform their duties to their equals only. They found it derogatory to help those who were weak, inferior and oppressed. Instead, they inspired fear and inferiority in them to gain power over them. In time, the superior persons in the society shaped a moral code that made strength a good thing and weakness a bad thing. And this entire conferring of honor on things was based on a simple sentiment: what is good to me is good in itself and what is bad to me is bad in itself. If you lived in such society, you would probably have believed slavery to be a natural order or equality to be "a collective degradation of men".

When the masters created their own morality, the slaves retaliated by what Nietzsche called slave morality. It was a reaction to the master’s oppression. It villainized the oppressors and gave birth to the concept of evil. It intended to make the master feel guilty about himself because he oppressed the weak, the needy and the unemancipated. It brought warm heart, obliging hand, humility, charity and pity to honor. It valued those qualities which highlighted the plight of the sufferers. In other words, the slaves chose humility and sympathy to be moral virtues because this suited their own position and because it demonized the masters whom they hated. The moral values were made moral in an attempt to conceal the creator’s selfishness.

According to Nietzsche, in the struggle to power, the slave morality triumphed the master morality. This was because the powerful were few in number compared to the masses of the weak. The weak corrupted the strong into believing that “good” means “tending to ease suffering” and “evil” means “tending to inspire fear”. This was the most intelligent revenge designed by the weak. Nietzsche considered the biblical principle of turning the other cheek and kindness towards fellow humans as the manifestation of same slave morality. Religion was, to him, just a tool of the dominant class to indoctrinate the society in such a way to best serve their own interests.

In the same way, he considered the rise of democracy as a part of the same emasculating ideology. Democracy seeks to offer everyone freedom and equal representation which is exactly what the weak wanted. The predominant belief in our society that democracy is better than dictatorship is a testimony to the victory of the slaves over the masters. This old invention of the weak has permeated into every part of our socio-economic lives. We can't help but see the ideas like utilitarianism, liberalism, and communism in the same light. Their "priestly vindictiveness" has conquered the psyche of a modern man.

So, what we consider as a moral is not actually moral in literal sense. These morals are good not because of their inherent goodness, but because of their usefulness to those who believe and act according to them. It is equally good or equally wrong to help others. Find who you are because depending on your position, your weapon of morality should change. If you are the one in need of help, your morals should be pity, kindness, friendship etc. If you are the one who has a command over the one who needs help, your morals could be power, strength and even cruelty.

P.S. I have skipped the part where Nietzsche argues in favor of master morality on very rational grounds. Personally, I still don't endorse the concept of "the higher path" for higher individuals at the cost of lower individuals, but it makes me reflect upon my own morality and its true identity. While it does not change the basic tenets of my moral thinking, it sure provides a new perspective, a new way of looking at it.