Week Five Reading Essay
This week’s reading essay delves into Friedrich Nietzsche first two essays in On the Genealogy of Morals. The main topic of discussion was centered around the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and the connotation of those aforementioned words throughout historical context. The definition of morality has been upholstered in many different contexts spreading over class and religious lines. Nietzsche tries to educate the reader in terms of the origins of the words, and his opinion on what their true meaning is. His use of vivid examples are an attempt to further illustrate his thoughts on the subject.
The First Essay of On the Genealogy of Morals is divided into 17 sections, with the reader witnessing the evolution of Nietzsche’s thought on the matter of of ‘good’ and
‘bad’. He beings the First Essay by disclosing his dissenting views with English psychologist’s thoughts in regards to the topic of morality and its origins. According to the psychologists the origins of ‘good’ came about from people who, “…originally praised unegoistic actions and called them good from the perspective of those for whom they were done, that is, those for whom such actions were useful. Later people forgot how this praise began, and because unegoistic actions had, according to custom, always been praised as good, people then felt them as good—as if they were something inherently good.” (Nietzsche). This illustrates the fact that not only is the historical origin of the term ‘good’ not based off a selfless expression, but also the fact that using people was somehow an ‘inherent’ good. Nietzsche disagreed with this opinion on all accounts, stating that showing someone some goodness does not solely describe the term ‘good’.
Nietzsche further deepens the discussion of moral by showcasing the original group that decided to identify what was actually ‘good’; the noble class. The nobles

classified themselves as separate from the poor commoners due to their standing as the upper echelon of society, which was possible because of their wealth and bloodlines.
They were not only powerful over society in terms of societal structure, but they had a power to mold the connotations of words. From Nietzsche’s research on the etymology of the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’, he found, “…that everywhere ‘noble’ and ‘aristocratic’ in a social sense is the fundamental idea out of which ‘good’ in the sense of ‘spiritually noble,’
‘aristocratic,’ “spiritually high-minded,” ‘spiritually privileged’ necessarily develops, a process which always runs in parallel with that other one which finally transforms
‘common,’ ‘vulgar,’ and ‘low’ into the concept ‘bad’,” (Nietzsche). This is an example of how the noble where able to have a voice in society due to their standing, so they decided to describe their deeds and influence in a positive light, and naturally everything in comparison was left with a negative connotation. The lower castes who were ultimately
‘low’ and ‘vulgar’ in the eyes of the privileged, were now identified as the ‘bad’.
Nietzsche identifies how the etymology of moral terms begins shifting as the priests begin to have control. “…so for the first time the words ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ appear as contrasting marks of one’s social position, and later a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ also develop with a meaning which no longer refers to social position,” (Nietzsche).
Previously, the priests were seen as a part of the lower caste, with their impotence and financial standing in society, but through this transfer of power, they were now able to positively connote their contribution to society. Nietzsche then begins to transcend in the religious sphere of morality by highlighting the reversal of morality from the evolution from Judaism to Christianity.

The reading then goes into discuss the topic of ‘slave revolt in morality’ through the idea of ressentiment. “…it will value cleverness to a completely different extent, that is, as a condition of existence of the utmost importance; whereas, cleverness among noble men easily acquires a delicate aftertaste of luxury and sophistication about it:—here it is simply less important than the complete functional certainly of the ruling unconscious instincts or even a certain lack of cleverness, something like brave recklessness, whether in the face of danger or of an enemy, or those wildly enthusiastic, sudden fits of anger, love, reverence, thankfulness, and vengeance, by which in all ages noble souls have recognized each other,” (Nietzsche). Nietzsche believes that the negative things that begin to grow inside a man of ressentinment only increase the hatred in him, which essentially makes the man of ressentinment quite clever and able to bypass the simplicity of a noble man.
Nietzsche goes further into his point by contrasting lambs and birds of prey to help comprehend the term ‘good’ in regards to ressentiment. The examples illustrates that since birds of prey kill lambs, that lambs believe everything other than the evil birds of prey, are ideally ‘good’. This belief also includes the lambs into the category of ‘good’, since they are not birds of prey. Nietzsche understands that this theory is comprehensible, but he does not agree that the killing of lambs should label the birds of prey as evil. In his opinion, “To demand from strength that it does not express itself as strength, that it does not consist of a will to overpower, a will to throw down, a will to rule, a thirst for enemies and opposition and triumph, is just as unreasonable as to demand from weakness that it express itself as strength,” (Nietzsche). This quote shows that due to the lack of

understanding in regards to the connotation of expressions that others see the birds of prey separate from its strength.
Nietzsche goes into describing the invention of slave morality and how it is a concept full of hate. Slave morality believes that the concept of justice is something that masters have no regard for, and that God will establish justice on those masters. The opinion of the poor according to Nietzsche is to, “…be different from evil people, namely, good! And that man is good who does not overpower, who hurts no one, who does not attack, who does not retaliate, who hands revenge over to God, who keeps himself hidden, as we do, the man who avoids all evil and demands little from life in general, like us, the patient, humble, and upright,” (Nietzsche) Those who are powerless feed onto this idea of justice in order to establish an outlet for them to prove themselves as being right.
In his Second Essay, Nietzsche goes into the topic of guilt and consciences. He first analyses a human’s ability to have promises, and that people who make promises are predictable, and in being so, must mutually follow ideas that control behavior. Nietzsche focuses on the concept of a ‘sovereign individual’, “the human being who possesses his own independent and enduring will, who is entitled to make promises—and in him a consciousness quivering in every muscle, proud of what has finally been achieved and has become a living embodiment in him, a real consciousness of power and freedom, a feeling of completion for human beings generally. This man who has become free, who really is entitled to make promises, this master of free will,” who are able to make promises because of their free will (Nietzsche). Since these ‘sovereign individuals’ determine their own fate, there is an appropriation of responsibility set on these people, and this is what is known as a ‘conscience’.

Through this explanation of what a ‘conscience’ actually is, Nietzsche describes that originally, the word ‘guilt’ was not one regarding morality, but one that was parallel to punishment. “For the most extensive period of human history, punishment was certainly not meted out because people held the instigator of evil responsible for his actions, and thus it was not assumed that only the guilty party should be punished,”(Nietzsche). In this description of how archaic the concept of this was, it showcases the cruelty of the times, and how people took pleasure out of this. The term
‘guilt’ was associated with debt.
Nietzsche goes deeper into the concepts of ‘conscience’ and ‘guilt’ by comparing it to the creditor and debtor. He examines the idea that everything has a price, even deeds of the people, and that the people are essentially in debt to the community. “By means of the ‘punishment’ of the debtor, the creditor participates in a right belonging to the masters. Finally he also for once comes to the lofty feeling of despising a being as someone ‘beneath him,’ as someone he is entitled to mistreat—or at least, in the event that the real force of punishment, of executing punishment, has already been transferred to the ‘authorities,’ the feeling of seeing the debtor despised and mistreated. The compensation thus consists of an order for and a right to cruelty,” (Nietzsche). Those who dishonor the community are going against the creditor, which therefore leads to the implementation of a punishment.
Nietzsche delves even deeper into the subject of ‘conscience’ by disregarding the idea of punishment as the reason behind the concept of a bad conscience. He believes that the, “…bad conscience the profound illness which human beings had to come down with under the pressure of that most fundamental of all the changes which they ever

experienced—that change when they finally found themselves locked within the confines of society and peace,” (Nietzsche).
He concludes his analyses by emphasizing if humans began to embrace their animal instincts, then the ‘bad conscience’ could lead to the affirmation of one’s life, rather than the wrongdoings that have already been done. Moving forward in life will help overcome obstacles.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. "On the Genealogy of Morals." . N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb 2014.
<http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/360/genealogytofc.htm>.