Q/A

Notes - Main Ideas in Nietzsche

Background on Nietzsche 

Friedrich Nietzsche, pictured here in the notes, was a German philosopher who lived from 1844 to 1900, during the second half of the nineteenth century. This was a time when the educated elite was beginning to question the claims of Christianity, as the Industrial Revolution and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution brought major changes to Europe.

Other thinkers, such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, had worked to establish a philosophical basis for ethics independent of religion, yet their thought still had much in common with earlier religious ethics. Kant, for example, spoke of treating others as one would want to be treated, while Mill spoke about the importance of counting everyone’s good as equal to one’s own.

In contrast, Nietzsche raised some more radical questions about the altruistic focus of Western ethics. If many people no longer look to God or religion for moral guidance, Nietzsche suggested, then maybe we should also question the generally altruistic and self-sacrificing focus of traditional ethics and replace it with a different outlook. 

Aristocratic and Priestly Ethics

As part of his critique, Nietzsche distinguishes between two different approaches to ethics, that he calls aristocratic and priestly ethics. According to Nietzsche,

Aristocratic ethics centers on the value of physical strength, external activity, and the pursuit of dominance and achievement.

In contrast,

Priestly ethics centers on the value of internal self-control, and concern for the good of others, especially the poor and marginalized.

The terms “aristocratic” and “priestly” give helpful images here, but we need to keep the right things in mind.

The word “aristocratic” does not refer to a wealthy member of the modern upper-class, so we should not be thinking of Downton Abbey or anything like that. Instead, Nietzsche is thinking more of the values we might associate with a barbarian tribe from ancient times, or the Greek warriors of the Iliad and the Odyssey, or maybe the knights of the Middle Ages.

Similarly, the word “priestly” is not meant to refer only to official Catholic priests. Nietzsche stresses how traditional Jewish thought embodies what he calls priestly ethics, and would probably include less religious thinkers such as Kant and Mill in this category as well, since they  also promote selfless concern for others over the pursuit of one’s own goals.

The Emergence of Priestly Ethics

The book we are reading from is called On the Genealogy of Morals, and as you may know, the word “genealogy” refers to the historical origins of something. For example, a person’s genealogy is their family tree. So, in this work, Nietzsche is giving an account of the origins of Western ethics.

Nietzsche believes that priestly ethics currently dominates Western thought, but that things have not always been this way.

He suggests that aristocratic ethics originally dominated most cultures, and that priestly ethics has emerged as a newer trend over the past few thousand years. On Nietzsche’s view, the Jewish people were the first to develop priestly ethics, and Christianity then emerged from this tradition and spread priestly ethics even more across society.

Some of Nietzsche’s comments about the Jewish people in the reading are very negative, and most likely embody anti-Semitic prejudice. At the same time, we can remember that Nietzsche’s criticisms of priestly ethics also apply to Christians and even to many secular thinkers, who he also believes are doing harm by promoting priestly ethics. 

The “Slave Revolt” in Ethics

Part of Nietzsche’s concern is that he views priestly ethics as based on the manipulation of the strong and powerful by the weak. In particular, he believes priestly ethics allows the weak to manipulate the strong to do their bidding, using tools such as guilt, intellectual cleverness, and religious rituals.

Nietzsche refers to this development as the “slave revolt” in ethics. Here, he is not talking about actual slaves revolting. Rather, he is talking about how the poorer and weaker classes, such as the clergy and devout religious believers, have gained power over the rich and strong. This has happened, he suggests, not by warfare or fighting, but by clever manipulation, as the weak have promoted a priestly approach to ethics that serves their own interests while limiting the power and privilege of the strong.

For example, in the distant past, warriors might have been able to violently amass large fortunes and use this to build castles and other impressive monuments. In contrast, societies influenced by Jewish and Christian thought, including modern society, are more likely to constrain the rich and powerful, pressuring them to give money to the poor, feel guilty for exploiting others, or pay taxes to benefit the rest of society.

Interestingly, Jews and Christians might agree with much of this story, in that these religions often claim to represent a major shift in how people view morality. The difference is that Nietzsche sees priestly ethics as a step in the wrong direction, while supporters of priestly ethics see it as a positive step towards a better and more compassionate society.

Nietzsche’s Criticism of Priestly Ethics

So, why does Nietzsche oppose priestly ethics? A few themes emerge in the reading:

· For one thing, Nietzsche suggests that aristocratic ethics is more noble or admirable than priestly ethics. Here, his thought seems to be that great conquerors, discoverers, or artists achieve greatness by perfecting their own talents, rather than always stopping to think about others. 

· In a similar way, Nietzsche implies that devotees of priestly ethics are less active and productive than those of aristocratic ethics. Whereas aristocratic ethics tells people to go out and do something impressive, the “priestly” clergy and intellectuals are often more concerned with judging or restricting others, rather than accomplishing something valuable themselves.  

· Lastly, Nietzsche implies that priestly ethics is typically motivated by jealously or ill-will toward the strong, which he refers to with the French term ressentiment. For example, referring to religious leaders, Nietzsche (1887/2010) states “Out of this powerlessness, their hate swells into something huge and uncanny to a most intellectual and poisonous level. The greatest haters in world history, and the most intelligent, have always been priests” (section 7). 

Assessing Nietzsche’s Views

To conclude, we can assess Nietzsche’s claims about history, as well as his ethical outlook.

Nietzsche’s historical account about the emergence of priestly ethics may be simplistic at times, but there is a fair amount of truth in it. Some past societies have been much less concerned about the poor and vulnerable than our society today, and an influence on this greater concern seems to be the religions of Judaism and Christianity, as well as secular philosophies who have been influenced by them.

At the same time, Nietzsche’s ethical outlook is much more controversial. Most people today would not join him in accepting aristocratic ethics, and would be appalled by the way he condones violence and domination by the strong, while disparaging the weak as “rats” and “lambs.” 

There are, of course, some people who fit Nietzsche’s negative portrayal of priestly ethics—people who take joy in judging and attacking the rich and powerful, while doing little of value themselves. However, we also see people who go totally against the narrative Nietzsche develops. Individuals like Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Malala Yousafzai, and Bill Gates, for example, invest lots of time and energy helping the vulnerable, while also being active, noble, and creative in ways that Nietzsche tended to associate with aristocratic ethics.

In particular, the growth of technology and rising standards of living seem to erode much of Nietzsche’s dichotomy between aristocratic and priestly ethics. At times, he makes it seems like society will either allow the powerful to do great things or help the poor meet their basic needs. However, in modern society, it is often possible to do both, blending the two value systems that Nietzsche envisioned. For example, even middle-class people can often afford to give money to the poor, while also pursuing their own excellence and success in fields like business, politics, athletics, or the arts.

Conclusion

With this being said, Nietzsche’s reading does make us to step back from what we take for granted as “obvious” ethical truths and consider that there have been multiple ways of envisioning ethics beyond the ones that prevail in our culture. There have been times when societies have promoted wars of conquest as noble activities, or allowed a small group to govern and exploit everyone else.

So, you can think of how exactly you would respond to someone holding such values, and what of lesson, if any, we can draw from Nietzsche’s account of aristocratic and priestly ethics.