What is Nietzsches distinction between master and slave moralities, and how does he argue against reason and free will and for the expression of our desires

Nietzsche differentiated between master and slave moralities because of their differences in defining and defending what is good and bad. For the master morality, the good refers to the noble and that they decide what is the value of being good or bad. Master morality also asserts that the bad is the despicable or the lowly and what they feel for those below them is merely pity. Master morality pertains to the overflowing principles of power, wealth, and abilities.  The master morality means that the noble will find important to preserve moral duties to equals, so that they would respect each other, but for those inferior to them, they must evoke fear.  The slave morality stresses that the noble is evil and not bad and it opposed master morality. It stresses the virtues of humility and patience to contradict the need for power and authority of the master morality.  Slave morality defends that morality should equally apply to all, and not only to the equals of their masters.

Nietzsche argued against reason and free will and for the expression of our desires. He stressed that free will is a product of theologians to scare people into believing in God. Instead, he believed that people should be considered as natural as animals, without reason or free will.  He also said that the proper way of understanding reason is in pragmatic terms, and as means to an end. He indicated that man is open to the expression of his desires according to his nature, and not according to morality. It does not mean though that he is advocating for a life of crime, but that people should also consider that they have their own interests that are compelled by their nature, and that in many ways, people can differ in their perceptions of reason and free will.


Post a Comment