The Master-Slave Morality

Master-slave morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been meaning to make a thread about morality for awhile and I figure this is a good place to start. I was doing some serious reading about Nietzsche for the first time today and came across this philosophy of his. Its quite interesting.

Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the good, then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating." In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things. Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality.

Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well.

This philosophy of his is similar to the philosophies of Ayn Rand I believe, and I disagree with both their views on morality. My philosophy is simply "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If the world adopted this "Master morality" that he suggests then the world would suffer from more ruin then it currently does. If one man ignored the desires of others and only focused on his own then what is to stop him from committing crimes such as theft, rape, and murder? The only reason he would not commit such crimes is because of fear of punishment. But if the threat of punishment did not exist at the time I see no reason why he would refrain from such actions. A man who holds such a philosophy would look at someone with money and say "I want their money", so he takes it. Tell me, what would stop such a man from doing so?

Nietzsche said something I very much agree with:

Fear is the mother of morality.

I cannot argue against this. I do not necessarily fear for myself, since I do not believe myself to be weak, but I do not see how others can support such a philosophy. A man who holds this Master philosophy that Nietzsche proposes could not be trusted. To him there is no reason not to betray you or harm you in some way if it is a benefit to him. So I reject this philosophy. I say you must consider the desires and feelings of others when determining your actions because you want them to consider yours.

Am I wrong? Thoughts?

Tangental research:





Fowles' own explanation of the purpose behind The Collector

Fowles explained in his follow-up book The Aristos, that the main point behind the novel was to show what he felt to be the danger of class and intellectual divisions in a society where prosperity for the majority was becoming more widespread, particularly power (whether by wealth or position) getting into the hands of those intellectually unsuited to handle it (for this, Fowles was accused by some critics[who?] of being a fascist).


The Collector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sooo I'm not exactly sure how that story relates. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I've said?

Originally Posted by TurranMC

I say you must consider the desires and feelings of others when determining your actions because you want them to consider yours.

Am I wrong? Thoughts?

Well, that is fear. You're afraid of how they're going to react. I mean, the whole idea is that you become subconsciously submissive through fear over time, right? So you're theoretically afraid of what will happen to you because of how others might react.

Therefore morality is simply you acting nice so other treat you nice back, because you're afraid if you do bad people will do bad to you; it's survival instinct.

PS: I'm no subscriber of Nietzche, but arguing it fun.

"The only reason he would not commit such crimes is because of fear of punishment. But if the threat of punishment did not exist at the time I see no reason why he would refrain from such actions."

I agree with this.. it is so true, have you noticed.. people who do such things, really do not even care for themselves or anything?

I think you may have misinterpreted him.

"What is good". What is seen to be good, for the self, does not hinge entirely upon a pseudo-objective view of "self-benefit", such as un[self-restricted] pursuits of pleasures and maintenance of access to them.


A master could have empathy and sympathy. It could feel uncomfortable with the suffering of others, thus judging the suffering as evil or bad, selfishly.
It could also judge what leads people to cause suffering to oneself directly or indirectly as detrimental, bad, evil, and spread the views as morality for the slaves. Causing suffering to others in some ways could also cause suffering to oneself, and spreading morality that decreases what is seen by the master as badness and evil could be a way of making things more good, and be a "good" deed in itself, in the eyes of the master.

In the end, it would depend entirely upon the emotional and mental self-awareness of the master and its degree of sympathy towards other people.

Originally Posted by Shadow2751

Well, that is fear. You're afraid of how they're going to react. I mean, the whole idea is that you become subconsciously submissive through fear over time, right? So you're theoretically afraid of what will happen to you because of how others might react.

Therefore morality is simply you acting nice so other treat you nice back, because you're afraid if you do bad people will do bad to you; it's survival instinct.

PS: I'm no subscriber of Nietzche, but arguing it fun.

I said I could not really argue with him and essentially agreed with his opinion on fear's relation to morality. What I was saying was I do not necessarily fear for myself, but I fear for other people, and I think they should fear for themselves. What you said afterward I pretty much agree with. You should treat others kindly so they will treat you in return. It is a philosophical morality the entire world should adopt.

Originally Posted by Latte

I think you may have misinterpreted him.

"What is good". What is seen to be good, for the self, does not hinge entirely upon a pseudo-objective view of "self-benefit", such as un[self-restricted] pursuits of pleasures and maintenance of access to them.


A master could have empathy and sympathy. It could feel uncomfortable with the suffering of others, thus judging the suffering as evil or bad, selfishly.
It could also judge what leads people to cause suffering to oneself directly or indirectly as detrimental, bad, evil, and spread the views as morality for the slaves. Causing suffering to others in some ways could also cause suffering to oneself, and spreading morality that decreases what is seen by the master as badness and evil could be a way of making things more good, and be a "good" deed in itself, in the eyes of the master.

In the end, it would depend entirely upon the emotional and mental self-awareness of the master and its degree of sympathy towards other people.

I see what you're saying. Someone who follows the "Master Morality" will not necessarily be a bad person. In fact I could see them doing many good things. But this is because even the evilest of men will help others, but they do so because helping other people will help themselves in one way or another. My point is that people who follow this moral philosophy are more likely to be bad people than good ones because the philosophy itself says fuck what other people want, do whatever benefits you.

I am now 100% certain that I don't like Nietzsche. Thanks for sharing that.

He's not really advocating it, though. He's merely describing.

I don't see how there's anything to condemn.

Nietzsche was interesting in lots of ways. A particular way that I found interesting is he is one of the rare philosophers who doesn't implicitly or explicitly place him/her self somewhere at the top of the moral/intellectual heirarchy he constructs. In fact, as I understand, he stated that he didn't have it in him to pursue the path of master morality.

I always was struck by this, coz many philosophers I have read somehow place themselves near the top (Plato's philosopher kings, Aristotle saying the more rational the better, Mill's attempts at defining higher pleasure). Nietzsche on the other hand describes what he believes to be the truth, and unflinchingly admits he's not up for it. I always found that admirable.

In terms of your rejection of master morality, Turran, if I were Nietzsche I would say an Ubermensch would not care if people trusted him/her or not. They would try to dominate through force/force of will. They do not require loyalty or trust, just obedience. Caring whether people trust you or not, or caring whether you can trust them is symptomatic of slave morality.

I don't know that I agree with his assertion that fear is the mother of morality though. I don't treat other people well because I am afraid of what would happen if I didn't. I do it because I choose to. I might be viewing it wrong, but I think this is the sort of attitude the likes of Sartre, Camus and Marcel took. Yes there is no objective grounds for morality, but through mutual love and respect we will choose to act in certain ways. My (possibly very wrong) way of conceiving of Camus and Marcel in particular is of them taking the Ubermensch who knows he/she is truly free, and who chooses to treat people with love and respect, because they think it is the best choice you can make. Their problem is they try to expand this out into a binding moral system, which doesn't quite work.