The Development of Law and its effect on people
In
Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of
Morals, we are shown a how trade has fueled the human development,
specifically with the development of rudimentary laws. These laws are
impartial, and keep a balance in all things except create inequality for people.
First we are shown how early man
comes to develop rudimentary law. “Buying and selling together… are older than
even the beginnings of any social form of organization.” Buying and selling
represent a trade of which an object is traded for something of equal value. As
humans engaged in buying and selling, the human necessarily became the
“’measuring animal’” in order to measure the values of objects to make fair
deals for themselves when buying and selling. The idea that “everything has its
price” is the “earliest canon of moral justice” (52). The development of
putting a price on everything is a sense of “moral justice” because it sets a
balance by equating two things – an object and a price. Laws are eventually set
in place to protect this idea so that buying and selling remain fair, so that
everyone has an equal chance to benefit.
Humans then
continued “…the habit of comparing, measuring, and calculating power in
relation to power” (51). This idea works well with the concepts of crime and
punishment, because it restored the balance offset by crime. However, the laws
protecting the ideas of setting prices to objects or concepts creates
inequality for people. When people started comparing themselves to others, they
created, imbalance, and inequality between humans, creating classes. Just as
humans felt superior over other animals, they now felt superior over each
other. While these rudimentary laws that keep trade fair by keeping values set
for objects were beneficial to people for trade, these laws do not protect the
values of people in any way, and because of this, there is inequality.
Discussion Question: How does Friedrich Nietzsche justify
this inequality between people? How would noble and slave moralities view this
inequality?
Anker makes some great points about the nature of rudimentary law in response to natural exchanges between man. While this exchange can be symbolized by the buying and selling of trade, I interpreted Nietzsche's definition to be more concerned with relationships between people. He defines this concept as an interaction between "creditor and debtor" that always persists throughout society (45). Historically, both money and the satisfaction of others' pain restored an equilibrium between the creditor and debtor. Nietzsche argues that an increasingly powerful society will eventually decrease in pain tolerance and increase in ambivalence to misconduct. Therefore, laws must be put in place to discourage harmful activity. This is my understanding of Nietzsche's logic behind laws.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche continues by arguing that ressentiment, a quality of slave morality, is more punishable than noble morality. He claims that since the man of noble morals "has no need to evaluate his object in a false and prejudiced manner as the reactive man does," he posseses a "freer eye" and "the better conscience," (55). Nietzsche believes that since noble morality simply acts upon their nature rather than reacting to external forces, it deserves more protection under the law. In this way, Nietzsche strongly favors noble morality over slave morality.
Going off what Eleanor said, Nietzsche emphasizes the relationship between creditor and debtor (brought upon by trade) as the source of power for one class of people. Not only can creditors ensnare and impoverish debtors, but they can also cause debtors guilt by treating them with clemency. According to Nietzsche, this brings the creditor strength because it allows him to define morals and initiate a system of morality in which he is constant, superior, and in control. This becomes recognized as "the beginning of all 'neighborliness,' all 'fairness' all 'good will,' all 'objectivity' on earth" when, in actuality, it is the beginning of systematized inequality (52).
ReplyDeleteI found the ideas here interesting. "To the extent that inflicting pain occasions the greatest pleasure, to the extent that the injured party exchanges for the damage done," Nietzsche argues that suffering can compensate for a "debt" (47). So, the creditors gain power over the debtors allowing them, as Emily argues, to "define morals and initiate a system of morality in which he is constant, superior, and in control." Ellie points out that men of the noble morality are less "punishable" and posses "'the better conscience.'" Nietzsche states that the conscience is permits people "to vouch for oneself, and do so with pride, and so to have the right to affirm oneself" (42). The noble morality comes from the self affirmation of the nobles seeing their traits as good. So, to answer your question Anker, I think the inequality brought on sets up or solidifies the noble and slave moralities rather than the inequality being something upon which the moralities can remark.
ReplyDelete