On the Genealogy of Morals

Nietzsche’s critique of English “psychologists” included important historical figures like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Paul Rée, and John Stuart Mill (Ranasinghe, Prashan. “Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals and Criminology.” Theoretical Criminology, 2022). He uses the term “psychologists” to speak broadly about Western thinkers he felt had succumbed to a false theory of morality. Nietzsche rejected utilitarianism, a popular philosophical approach to ethics and morality which argues that morality is determined by actions which produce the highest yield of good. This idea is considered a form of consequentialism: humans understand what the right thing to do is by the consequences their actions produce. Utilitarianism emphasizes actions which contribute to the good of all or the greatest amount of good possible.

Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham proposed that right action, or good, produces pleasure in the individual, further solidifying the value of the action. Although records indicate that Nietzsche never read Jeremy Bentham’s work, he was familiar with Bentham’s concepts and had read the work of many other thinkers who had been influenced by him. Bentham believed that humans were ruled by pleasure and pain and that right action always produced the greatest amount of pleasure and happiness for the individual and others.

Nietzsche vehemently opposes these ideas. He concludes that utilitarianism is synonymous with Christian morality and selflessness. He invokes the theme of Morality and Power by claiming that morality is the product of complex systems of power and the need to make sense of an otherwise meaningless existence. The current structures of Christian morality serve people in power by instilling a way for lower classes to govern themselves. The belief that they must only commit to actions which produce the greatest amount of good for others ensures that people will typically choose actions which are peaceful and helpful for the larger community. This ensures docility and submissiveness in the general population.

When examining history, Nietzsche employs a genealogical approach, which examines the origins of ideas and rejects traditional views of accepted ideologies. Where Nietzsche lacks clear historical data, he uses language to understand how ideas developed. For example, the word “nobility” equates wealth with a higher level of morality—one that is “noble.” The aspirational nature of power transforms “good” into that which most closely aligns with the ways of life of the aristocracy. The word “nobility” implies a message that one should aim toward wealth, that this is a type of moral nirvana everyone must hope to reach. The words “clean” and “unclean” comprise another interesting contribution to his argument. Originally designed to symbolize a level of physical sanitation, the terms became associated with good and evil. Throughout the work, Nietzsche criticizes adopted moral systems that are the product of power dynamics. He argues that spending one’s life bowing to the forces of social morality causes one to turn away from the self.

This line of argument further illustrates the relationship between Morality and Power and how aristocratic values pervade cultural norms. Since certain qualities are associated with wealth, they are then translated as being innately and morally good. A more contemporary example of this is Slavenka Drakulic’s highly anthologized essay “On Bad Teeth” from her 1999 work Café Europa: Life After Communism. In it Drakulic explores the way an obsession with perfect teeth among the wealthy developed an association between straight, white teeth and moral superiority. Although Drakulic uses contemporary examples, such as toothpaste commercials, to illustrate her point, the relationship between hygiene and socioeconomic status is an old one. Shakespeare refers to the “stinking breath” of the plebians in Julius Caesar, and the well-known adage “Cleanliness is next to godliness” was likely coined in the 1700s by John Wesley, one of the cofounders of Methodism. Equating cleanliness with morality perpetuates the idea that true morality belongs to those with the power and means to obtain it.

In contrast to aristocratic or “master” morality, “slave morality” (also referred to as “the slave’s revolt to morality” [22] in the text) is central to Nietzsche’s argument in the first essay. He proposes that oppressed people will always harbor resentment toward those in power. Their retaliation manifests as a new set of values. “Slave morality” emphasizes meekness and humility. Although he is critical of “slave morality” and aristocratic morality, Nietzsche recognizes that power is a fact of life. Neither of these systems are inherently wrong. In fact, both systems serve people in specific ways: While the aristocracy maintains its control on power and justifies its actions through its own moral system, lower classes feel satisfied with what little they have, as they practice a religion that consistently reminds them that they will one day receive their reward in heaven. Nobility is secure in its monetary and authoritarian superiority, while lower classes are smug that they have selected the “right” morality and will one day advance above nobility in the afterlife. This emphasizes the unique role of Ascetic Ideals and the Priest, as ascetism becomes associated with morally superior ways of living amongst the poor. The Church serves both types of morality by supporting and submitting to the aristocracy while uplifting and serving lower classes.