In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche explains
how morality is used to, “to breed a tame and civilized animal…from the
predatory man” (27). In order to understand the self-sustaining system that
Nietzsche presents, it is important that we first understand his terminology because
Nietzsche’s argument hinges on redefining our moral vocabulary. It is clear, in
the second essay, that Nietzsche understands “guilt” and “conscience” as interconnected
just as slave morality does. That is, guilt stems from the assumed presence of
a conscience. However, Nietzsche often
refers to conscience, in this context, as “bad conscience”. I will argue that Nietzsche
differentiates between bad conscience and a better conscience based on their
origins.
In
several different instances, Nietzsche asserts that humans, when following
their natural tendencies, are aggressive. However, slave morality deemed these
types of behavior as “bad”, and as a result, these “instincts were devalued and
‘suspended’” (64). When human are unable to externalize their aggression in a socially
acceptable manner, these tendencies are turned internally. Nietzsche explains
that this “internalization” acts a way to cope with the constrictions of society
(65). Bad conscience originates from
desire to conform to society’s idea of good and the resulting aggression toward
one’s own instincts. Therefore, guilt is derived from the innate desire to act
in a way that society has deemed as bad. While it is an internal process, the standards
that drive bad conscience are external.
Although
mentioned only briefly, Nietzsche describes a better conscious. Contrary to bad
conscience, this conscience originates internally. This idea concerns what
Nietzsche refers to as the “sovereign man” who is free from the influence of
society’s moral systems (41). The person
who is free from the influence of morality and of ressentiment has the “freer
eye”, implying that he or she is able to make judgments based purely off of
personally developed beliefs. It is clear that both types of conscience serve
the purpose of evaluating situations, but it is their origin that determines
the validity of their judgments.
Discussion Question: Based on this evaluation of the two
types of conscience, what can we conclude about Nietzsche’s opinion about
morality in general? How does the need to redefine our moral language influence
the way we interpret Nietzsche’s argument?
Kind of random, but what Kyra points out here reminds me of Second Sex a little bit. Both Nietzsche and de Beauvoir seem to argue for internal identities and claim that many aspects of humanity that seem innate (morals, femininity...)are actually products of society. The "freer eye" that you bring up is parallel to dB's concept of transcendence.
ReplyDeleteKyra makes a really good point in saying that man is naturally agressive. I found this particularly clear in Nietzsche's criticism of the slave morality and ressentiment when he says that the slave morality causes men to react, "with revenge to bring all the reactive feelings retroactively"(54). The emphasis on "reactive" and "retroactive" really illuminated the differences between these types of conscience. Furthermore, I think that Kyra is correct about Nietzsche's idea of a better conscience that comes within because it makes man into "half-animals" who are "locked in the spell of society and peace," unable to reveal their natural ways (64).
ReplyDeleteKyra makes some really good points, and I agree with Emily when she states that "many aspects of humanity...are actually products of society." I thought it was interesting when Nietzsche stated "bad conscience is an illness, there is no doubt about it." Normally, you are exposed to things that make you ill and must therefore have interacted in an environment to harm you. Similarly, a bad conscience may come from interacting within your society.
ReplyDeletePossibly going a bit out there in attempt to answer your first question, Nietzsche thinks morals and morality are totally irrelevant because of your analysis. Since doing something society arbitrarily labels as 'bad' or 'evil' causes one guilt, even if that thing is an innate human desire like the festivity of punishment, then morality is irrelevant because it serves only to cause one guilt against his or her own human nature. It is an obnoxious obstacle in this way.
ReplyDeleteIn the terms used in Nietzsche's argument, one of the few words that seems to crossover between the priestly and noble morality is aggression. While both have very different appropriations of aggression, the noble being in natural action the other being a controlling mechanism reactive to the natural aggression of the noble morality. I see this being rooted in the first addressal Nietzsche makes towards punishment and memory and how it reinforces societal rules/expectations. What is most curious is that society reacts to the nobles aggression the same way the noble responds aggressively to a stimulus. I think the difference that Nietzsche identifies is the maintenance of natural order versus the established norm. Yet aggression in both cases is still the same.
ReplyDeleteI found Kyra's points on the internalization that Nietzsche discusses to be very interesting. The bad conscience that slave morality establishes allows for the bad things that do occur to the good people can be somehow expressed inwardly without expressing it outwardly in society. By internalizing the instincts that one has, it creates a way to not disrupt the peace of society, which comes from taming the individuals to suppress their instincts. Society's influences upon man cause them to conform to its standards and stay away from its true animalistic ways. Nietzsche states that "punishment tames man, but it does not make him 'better' -one might with more justification assert the opposite" (64). Here, he describes the fear of acting against society's standards and that if one does, there is a punishment that will instill the guilt within them from their obtained bad conscience. Because their instincts are oppressed, it inwardly affects them; each individual affected by society is suppressing their natural way, or animalistic ways. To Kyra’s discussion questions, I think that Nietzsche’s opinion on morality may hinge upon the fact that there is a suppression of human’s natural ways. Morality creates a barrier of humans obtaining freedom to express them without the bad conscience, which creates unnecessary fear of societal punishments.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Kyra's discussion questions, Nietzsche is saying that bad conscience is bad because it caused by slave morality which essentially harms people. While the natural instincts of "...hostility, cruelty, pleasure in persecution, in assault, and change, in destruction..." were once commonplace for the half animal, they are now directed inwardly at humans. This establishment of bad conscience puts humans in a "place of torture" (65).
ReplyDeleteThe man is peaceful by nature. Guilt is a derivative of good conscience. Bad conscience is fertility.
ReplyDeleteOr bad outcomes, good and bad conscience can both have guilt conscience is a state of mind of choice guilt is a verb
ReplyDelete