Analysis of on the Genealogy of Morality by Friedrich Nietzsche

In his first essay, titled Good and Evil, Good and Bad, Nietzsche illustrates two different moral codes, with origins which seem to date back to ancient civilizations. The first moral code applies to nobility and the upper class of civilizations, while the second moral code is about the lower class or slaves. He explains that the while the upper class' moral code was designed to be better than that of the lower class' moral code (to hold superiority over the lower class, saying that riches and wealth are good while being poor is bad), the lower class through some form of spite and resentment have managed to create their own unique moral code, one which is ultimately superior (more enriching and refined) than that of the upper class. The example Nietzsche uses to describe this mentality is the oppression of the Jews in ancient Egypt, saying that their moral code eventually created Christianity.

These moral codes certainly seem apparent in more primitive cultures, and even hold true to some societies today with some of the more prominent economic and social figures holding themselves higher or better than those who are less fortunate than them. I agree with his mentality about the lower class developing a more fruitful moral code than that of the upper class, comparing this thought process to the ability of someone being passionate toward a certain subject or ability, take for example painting. A rich person can purchase everything necessary and then some to start their path toward becoming an artist, however the person who simply uses whatever they can to practice painting as much as possible, and as long as they are passionate toward painting will become the better artist. Money wouldn't really become an issue. Relating this back to Nietzsche's idea of morality, the lower class may have less to work with compared to the upper class but their labors will eventually lead into the more fulfilling moral code.

Nietzsche's second essay draws an interesting connection between the words "guilt" and "debt." He states that guilt originally had no involvement with moral codes or ethics, rather its use dates back to the debts that people would have with certain creditors. Noting the similarities the two words have in German, a "guilt" was simply a debt which needed to be fulfilled, and if it could not be fulfilled in time a creditor could do whatever was necessary to fulfill the debt. It wasn't meant to create guilt for the person who had the debt; rather the creditor was meant to gain what was originally loaned out. This origin is separate from the idea it holds in morality, in which "guilt" would be the depressing conscience of the debtor when he or she could not fulfill the debt. The connotation it has in morality is much more negative than it should be.

This essay also explained the suppression of violent natures and bad consciences from the transition between hunter-gather societies and agrarian cultures. As humanity became more civilized, switching to forms and conditions of living which separated us from animals, humanity saw less of a need for savage, animalistic urges. We suppressed them, and urges which become suppressed usually develop a negative connotation. This is what Nietzsche believes to be the origin of the "bad conscience," and I see it to be true as well. As humanity evolved toward what it is today, certain traits had to be dropped, traits which we developed when we were still animals. By eliminating these traits, we have successfully separated us from the rest of the animal kingdom, rising up to something superior. Those who still cannot resist these urges are forced to suppress them, creating a guilty or bad conscience.

Nietzsche's third essay revolves around ascetics; their definition and how humanity uses them to their benefit. He describes ascetics as something which differs from culture to culture and help to give a certain culture an identity, forming unique cultures all over. In this case Nietzsche calls ascetics good for humanity, commending the open-mindedness this mentality brings as it promotes diversity, along with humanity accepting difference.

One thing I disagree with is his condemning of the sciences and natural laws as an alternative to religion. He claims that sciences are not ascetics and that they cannot replace the role religion fulfills, which I find to be close-minded. The comfort one generates from turning to a religion should be allowed to come from whatever source a person finds reassuring, it shouldn't be tied strictly to established religions. If people see the scientific laws we've created and get some form of comfort knowing that we know our boundaries or whatever it is they see fit, I don't see why it can't replace the role of religion.

Source: On the Genealogy of Morality, translation by Maudemarie Clark and Alan J. Swensen. Written by Friedrich Nietzsche.