Previous
Preface
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in On the Genealogy of Morals, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Good and Evil
The Repression of Human Nature
Art, Beauty, and Emotions
Summary
Analysis
1. Nietzsche thinks about how morals come about. British psychologists argue that our moral beliefs accumulate passively over time, like habits. It’s embarrassing to acknowledge this, because we prize our abilities to think and choose rather than mindlessly absorb. Nietzsche wonders why British psychologists make such a controversial claim. Do they want to belittle humanity? Are they cynical about idealist thinking? Do they have a vendetta against Christianity or Plato? Are they just drawn to bizarre or paradoxical claims? Perhaps it’s a bit of all these things. Nietzsche likes to think it’s really because they’re brave enough to seek the truth even if the truth seems “repulsive, unchristian and immoral.”
When Nietzsche says “British psychologists,” he’s referring to empiricist thinkers. Empiricists believe that people acquire knowledge (of things like morals) by perceiving the world around them through their senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste). By contrast, idealists or rationalists like Plato are more skeptical about trusting what the senses perceive. They believe that knowledge can only be found within the mind, typically through reasoning. Nietzsche agrees with the empiricists. He thinks that all the things we know—including moral ideas about what’s good and bad—aren’t entrenched in our minds but are learned from the society we live in.
Themes
2. Nietzsche applauds British psychologists, but he thinks they’ve got morality’s origin story wrong. They argue that people start to praise selflessness when they benefit from others’ selfless acts. After a while, this praise becomes so habitual that everyone does it without necessarily knowing why. Eventually, people assume that selflessness is intrinsically good. However, Nietzsche has a different explanation: he thinks powerful men assume that they’re good and that what they think is good. These men distance themselves from others, whom they describe as “plebian.” Their sense of superiority creates the concepts of themselves as “good” and others as “bad.” Nietzsche thinks our tendency to assume that selflessness is intrinsically good grew out of this mechanism and that our “obsession” with it is like a “mental illness.”
Nietzsche agrees with British psychologists that moral values aren’t intrinsic, eternal ideas buried deep within our minds (because that would mean they’re absolute, consistent, and unchangeable). Rather, it’s clear to Nietzsche that morals are learned behaviors that evolve over time. But he disagrees with the typical story about what, specifically, shapes our moral ideas. British psychologists think that selfless behavior has been praised for so long that this practice shaped humanity’s idea of being selfless and kind as good. Nietzsche, however, thinks that powerful behavior was praised in the past, and that selflessness is merely a guise or a “mental illness” that covers up people’s natural tendency toward selfishness.
Themes
3. Moreover, Nietzsche says, it doesn’t make sense to assume that people somehow forget that they benefit from selflessness—it’s something that people notice every day, all the time. Another theorist, Herbert Spencer, argues that something is “good” if it’s proved useful in the past, as this is enough to make us think it’s intrinsically valuable. Nietzsche thinks Spencer’s view is more believable but still wrong.
Modern European people tend to assume that selflessness just is—and always has been—good. British psychologists like Spencer, however, argue that selflessness originally became popular at some point in human history because it paid off to live in a society full of selfless people, and that modern people have simply forgotten that fact. But Nietzsche doesn’t buy this, and he’s going to tell a different story about how selflessness became popularized as “good” behavior.
Themes
4. Nietzsche says he realized he was on the right track when he looked into the etymology of the word “good” in several different languages. They all derive from the idea of an “aristocratic” or “privileged” soul. Similarly, in German, the word for “bad” (schlecht) derives from “simple” or “common” man. It wasn’t considered bad to be “common” until after the Thirty Years War, when an English theorist named Buckle implied that being “common” was “bad” in his derogatory word “plebian.”
Nietzsche looks into the etymology—or historical origins —of the word “good” in several languages in order to see what it used to mean in the past. He finds that the word “good” isn’t historically associated with the word “selfless” at all. In fact, in early usage, the word “good” tends to be associated with the word “aristocratic,” which references people in high social classes. This supports Nietzsche’s claim that conceptions of goodness and selflessness tend to be rooted in power and influence rather than in genuine morality.
Themes
Get the entire On the Genealogy of Morals LitChart as a printable PDF.
5. Nietzsche explores the roots of the word “good” in various languages to show what the “noble” soul specifically considers good about itself. In some cases, “good” captures rich, powerful “owners” or “commanders.” Some definitions see these powerful people as “true,” in contrast to “lying,” “vulgar” men. The Greek word for “plebian” also connotes “cowardice.” Latin, Gaelic, and German meanings invoke a racial hierarchy: the Latin word for “vulgar” means “dark-colored” or “black-haired,” which is contrasted with “blond” and “Aryan.” Similarly, the Gaelic word for “good” means “noble blond,” and the German word “gut” means “godlike race.” Nietzsche notes that the “black-haired” people targeted here are actually Europe’s indigenous people. He wonders if ideas that we privilege now (such as modern democracy) are a terrible reversion to the idea of a master race.
Nietzsche finds that in very early usage, the word “good” means “noble” (high class), and “noble” references people who are powerful. In the past, people assumed that powerful people were worthy to rule because they were inherently better than ordinary people. In societies where the word “good” contains a racial component, the racial part references incoming conquerors—designating, again, the most powerful people who end up ruling a society. This means that historically, a society’s most powerful people—whoever they were—determined what was considered “good” and “bad.” Nietzsche also suggests that Europe’s early Aryan (or “blond”) conquerors might have been wrong in their views, meaning the morals and systems (e.g., modern democracy) that Europeans have inherited from them should be questioned.
Themes
6. Nietzsche says that in cultures where the highest class are priests, these priests have political power and also assume that they are psychologically superior. For example, priestly classes align themselves with “clean” and others with “unclean,” which resolves into “good” and “bad.” Originally, a “clean” person would just be someone who washed frequently and tried to avoid diseases. Among priests, this idea shifts into a code of conduct for their behavior—such as fasting, sexual abstinence, and isolation—but Nietzsche thinks that these are far more harmful practices to humanity. Other things that priests consider “evil,” like “pride, revenge, cunning, excess, love, ambition, virtue, illness” can be dangerous, but they also allow humans to be interesting. Nietzsche thinks so-called “evil” men are the ones with real depth.
Historically, being “clean” just meant not being physically dirty or diseased. However, once religious priests take charge, being “clean” or “unclean” takes on a moral dimension. Priests (or monks) believe that they’re better—or cleaner—than ordinary people because they refrain from indulging in food, sex, and socializing. When priests are powerful leaders in a society, everybody starts to adopt their beliefs about what’s good or bad (or clean and unclean)—but Nietzsche thinks this is a mistake. He argues that the priestly approach to life shuns everything that makes people interesting, hearkening back to his idea from the Preface that modern people tend to live in a detached, intellectual manner rather than tapping into the true nature of “being.”
Themes
7. It’s obvious that when knights or warriors are the nobility, their values oppose priestly notions of what’s “good.” Knights value physical power, health, “war, adventure, the chase, the dance,” which Nietzsche describes as “strong, free, joyous action.” Priests develop a hatred of these values, which is historically evident in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christian tradition evolves from ancient Jews who shift from considering “good” as “aristocratic,” “happy,” and “loved by the gods” to the opposite. “Wretched […] poor […] weak […] lowly” people become good, and powerful people start to be seen as evil. This is a result of a “slave revolt” against morality. Effectively, the disenfranchised shift the value of good to align with themselves, and evil with their oppressors.
Nietzsche argues that in societies ruled by knights or warriors, completely different ideas of “good” behavior take hold. Warriors value being strong, healthy, aggressive, and adventurous. Conflict and adventure make them feel free and powerful, and this gives them a sense of profound joy. People who are oppressed or enslaved by warriors (such as Judeo-Christians in Ancient Rome) feel resentful that the ruling warriors have so much joy, power, and freedom while they themselves have none. As a result, they come up with a new moral code. They describe their own experiences of being “weak” and “wretched” as “good,” and they demonize everything that their oppressors value (like strength and power). Nietzsche calls this a “slave revolt” against the prevailing moral code of warriors and knights. In contrast with the prevailing view of British psychologists, Nietzsche argues that this is actually how selflessness came to be seen as a virtue.
Themes
8. The “slave revolt” happens when Jesus of Nazareth comes onto the scene. He represents universal love that provides salvation to the poor and the wretched through sacrifice. Ultimately, he associates the poor and the weak with being blessed. For Nietzsche, the crucifixion of Jesus thus represents a sort of clever revenge on ancient Israel’s enemies, who become seduced and corrupted by the crucifixion. When Christianity comes onto the scene, it triggers Europeans to shift away from endorsing the knight-based nobility’s view of what’s good and toward endorsing priestly values about what’s good.
Nietzsche pinpoints the exact point in history when this “slave revolt” against warrior culture happens as the birth of Christianity, through figures like Jesus of Nazareth. To Nietzsche, ancient Jewish culture was more warriorlike, so Christianity sends Europeans down the wrong path. In a twisted sort of irony, he says, the Europeans who once-oppressed ancient Israelites end up adopting Christianity and becoming oppressed by that instead. With the birth of Christianity, a new anti-warrior morality—a “priestly” morality—emerges and takes hold of European culture.
Themes
9. Some people—so-called free thinkers, or “democrats”—might say that the birth of these Christian values was the great triumph of the Judaic tradition, and that everything is progressing well with the redemption of the human race from its “masters” because everything is becoming “Christianized.” Even those who hate the Church or think its existence is outdated and dispensable still love the morals that it champions—what Nietzsche calls “poison.” Nietzsche doesn’t agree, but he’s staying silent on this issue.
Many people in 19th-century Europe don’t think that Christianity takes Europe down the wrong path. In fact, they think it’s a progressive improvement that frees the weak and disenfranchised from their oppressive “masters” (warriors). Even Europeans who aren’t religious tend to base their ideas about what’s good and bad on Christian ideas (like kindness, self-sacrifice, and non-violence). Nietzsche completely disagrees with this picture, likely seeing it as a departure from knightly culture that champions weakness instead of strength.
Themes
10. Nietzsche argues that people who are deprived from acting freely feel resentment toward their oppressors. This resentment fuels their creative drive toward formulating new values, centering on characterizing others’ actions as evil. In this sense, “slave morality” is a reaction to what others do. “Aristocratic morality,” however, grows in the opposite way: it celebrates what powerful people can do themselves, and it interprets the limitations of the less powerful as bad. The aristocratic system is problematic because powerful people (aristocrats) assume that the less privileged are inferior, though they don’t know anything about the experiences of such people. They might even enjoy distorting their victims (the less powerful) into “monstrosities.”
To Nietzsche, the morality of the oppressed comes from a place of resentment. Oppressed people hate that they can’t be as free, powerful, and joyful as the warriors who oppress them. As a result, they depict their oppressors—and everything their oppressors do—as “evil,” and they invent a new idea of “good” based on the opposite of whatever warriors do. This new moral code is essentially reactive, as it develops on the basis of rejecting what others do. The warrior (or aristocrat’s) moral code, however, is proactive. It’s based on celebrating what a person can do for themselves: it focuses on maximizing the power and joy that a person can experience through their own actions.
Themes
For example, Ancient Greek nobles distinguish themselves from commoners by emphasizing their sympathy and consideration for the disenfranchised, which grows into a vision of disenfranchised people as “unhappy” or “pitiable.” The nobles already feel happy for being “well-born” and can act in pursuit of their happiness. For them, happiness and action are closely intertwined. Among the disenfranchised, happiness is a more passive notion: they can’t live confidently, act freely, or express themselves, so they become enamored with patience, self-deprecation, and humility.
Again, Nietzsche shows how modern conceptions of morality are reactive rather than proactive. In Ancient Greek society, people who are born into the highest social class (the nobility) have all the resources they need to freely pursue their lives with joy. By contrasts, it’s much harder for the disenfranchised to actively pursue what makes them happy, so underprivileged people shift their attention away from striving for happiness. Such people focus on things that make survival easier, such as patience and humility. Thus, these values, rather than ones that actually bring people joy, come to be depicted as morally good.
Themes
When aristocrats feel resentment, they can purge it immediately by acting—out of “rage, love, reverence, gratitude”—and recognize this same freedom in their enemies, whom they honor. In contrast, disenfranchised people, (or the “slaves”) have to become cunning to achieve their aims, since they need to get creative in order to craft a vision of enemies as evil.
Nietzsche argues that the nobility—or the most powerful people—in warrior-based cultures don’t really have a concept of evil. Warriors think everyone who freely pursues their power and personal joy is good, even their enemies. In warrior-ruled cultures, a person can be less good (as in less free, less powerful, or less lucky) but not intrinsically evil.
Themes
11. Less powerful people see aristocrats—the rulers of their society—as enemies and assume they are evil, even though the rulers adhere to conventions like respect, gratitude, pride, loyalty, and friendship. Living like that feels alien to oppressed people. They see their rulers—who impose order on others by conquering them—as murderers, rapists, and torturers, or “beasts of prey.” Among the disenfranchised, the boldness of the ruling warriors becomes associated with “barbarianism.” It feels that way to all who are oppressed by conquerors, so Vikings or Germanic heroes become “blond beasts” in the eyes of the oppressed. Similarly, Japanese, Arabic, and Roman heroes become beasts to the people they conquer.
In warrior-ruled cultures, the nobility (aristocrats) actually have a strong moral code. They value ideals like respect, pride, and friendship in shaping their personal pursuits of power and joy. But oppressed people can only think about their own misery, so they tend to depict the people who cause that misery as intrinsically evil. Disenfranchised people see all the characteristics of privileged people (such as strength, wealth, respect, pride, and loyalty) as fundamentally evil. They depict oppressors as predators, or “beasts” who hunt and “prey” on the weak. To Nietzsche, oppressed people effectively depict bold, powerful, happy warriors as evil, violent barbarians. The oppressed thus create the concept of evil to capture everything their oppressors embody.
Themes
Nietzsche believes that most people presume modern civilization’s great achievement is in providing a “domesticated” or “tame” version of humanity from the violent beast of prey. But Nietzsche thinks this indicates a decline in civilization. He thinks being a “tame” human is intolerably weak and undesirable, yet this ideal is often thought of as the pinnacle of human culture.
Fast-forwarding to late 19th-century Europe, Nietzsche says that most people think European culture is progressive because it’s eradicated violent, predatory tendencies from human culture. In other words, Nietzsche’s contemporaries think European society has “tamed” humanity by shunning violent and barbaric behavior (captured in the phrase “beasts of prey”) and developing a more civilized human culture. Nietzsche completely disagrees, as he views the “tame” beast as pathetic and regressive.
Themes
12. Nietzsche finds modern humanity intolerable, like “bad air” that emanates from rotten souls. Sometimes, however, he can glimpse a different vision of humanity that’s mightier, happier, and more triumphant, in which people live as fully realized beings. For Nietzsche, European civilization’s “great peril” is the drift towards egalitarianism. He thinks European civilization is regressing to a more “inoffensive,” “mediocre,” and Christian version of itself. In the effort to rid one another of our fear of what human beings are capable of, we’ve also lost our respect for what human beings can be. Nietzsche feels like human civilization has become pointless, and he’s tired of it.
Nietzsche thinks that human beings have primal, predatory instincts. Aggression, like it or not, is part of what it means to be human. To Nietzsche, modern European civilization tries to suppress the violent and aggressive aspects of human nature. European leaders even pretend that human beings can be egalitarian—meaning that we can think of every creature as equal instead of instinctively preying on weaker creatures. However, Nietzsche thinks that the quest to depict human beings as “inoffensive” versions of themselves has completely stunted humanity. Nietzsche uses the metaphor of “bad air”—the stink of rotting corpses—to represent the deadened state of modern humanity, in comparison to how alive we would feel if we could express all aspects of our human nature (including our aggressive tendencies) and thrive by celebrating all that we are capable of being.
Themes
13. Nietzsche looks at the concept of “Good” that emerges among those who resent being oppressed. The downtrodden dislike the strength of their oppressors, so they decide that being nonviolent, harmless, and not retaliating are good. The idea of being “patient” and “meek” gets associated with righteousness. Humans believe they are neutral and free to choose whether to act out of strength or meekness, but this is an illusion. The illusion—of being free to choose our human nature—allows people to think that choosing to be meek is an expression of freedom.
Nietzsche thinks that history’s oppressed people created the modern conception of a “good” person using a false picture of human nature. Nietzsche argues that human beings are instinctive predators, meaning we have a primal urge to seek power over weaker creatures (for example, our ancestors hunted prey to eat). Oppressed people, however, believe that humans can choose to act out of strength and power, or they can choose not to retaliate against their oppressors, and be “patient” and “meek” instead. Such people tell themselves that being humble expresses a sort of freedom to choose what kind of person they are. To Nietzsche, such people are actually suppressing their freedom, because they silence their instinctive urges to freely pursue power and strength.
Themes
14. Nietzsche imagines someone named Mr. Inquisitive and Foolhardy talking about what’s going on among the oppressed. Mr. Inquisitive and Foolhardy hears people whispering that they’re proud of being weak. These people think they shouldn’t retaliate against the wrongs done to them, but be nonviolent, forgiving, and try to love their enemies. The oppressed seem miserable but they believe they’re better off because they’ll be rewarded with “bliss.” Mr. Inquisitive and Foolhardy struggles to breathe the “bad air” that reeks from these lies. Nietzsche wonders how the oppressed make peace with their suffering. Mr. Foolhardy and Inquisitive says that he hears these people talking about getting their “bliss” in the “Kingdom of God.” Nietzsche says that he’s heard enough.
Nietzsche emphasizes that most behaviors oppressed people valorize—such as being nonviolent, forgiving, and not retaliating—make people suffer, because acting loving and kind all the time, even to aggressors, goes against our fundamentally predatory human nature. Nietzsche thinks that people justify their suffering by imagining it’s good for them (meaning they may feel miserable now, but they believe they’ll finally achieve “bliss” or joy in heaven, or “the Kingdom of God”). Nietzsche extends the metaphor of “bad air” to imply that believing in an afterlife with heavenly rewards stunts the human experience: it turns living, acting, thriving people into impotent, dead, rotting corpses that give off a stench, or “bad air,” that permeates society as a whole.
Themes
15. Nietzsche feels agitated. He thinks that religious people are “weaklings.” They have faith and love in the “Kingdom of God,” but in order to get their rewards, they have to figure out how to continue living after death. Nietzsche thinks that many religious concepts are formed out of hatred. Nietzsche looks at the Christian authority Thomas Aquinas, who says (in Latin) that the cruel pleasure of public revenge pale in comparison to the rewards of judgement day, when the mighty—the kings, the athletes, and the magistrates—will burn in flames and darkness.
Nietzsche’s agitated rhetoric reflects his belief that the Christian religion is a perverse way for some oppressed people to feel a sense of power. Instead of taking power over their oppressors in real life, such people imagine terrible things happening to their oppressors in the afterlife, with hatred, resentment, and a desire for vindication. To Nietzsche, these are perverse feelings that manifest when people try to stifle their aggressive tendencies. To Nietzsche, religious people repress their aggression, which makes it fester, grow, and morph into something perverse, instead of embracing their aggression, letting it out, and letting it go.
Themes
16. Nietzsche says that the battle over moral values can be symbolized by Rome and Judea, when Christianity emerged. The Romans are like the aristocrats who value being strong. The Jews of this time (essentially, early Christians) value being priestly. Which values wins out? Nietzsche says that humanity has been “tamed” by Judaeo-Christian ideals rooted in figures like Jesus of Nazareth. During the Renaissance, Roman ideals resurface again, but the Reformation happens and the restoration of the Church silences them. The battle over values reemerges during the French Revolution and the “instincts of a resentful populace” win out. To Nietzsche, only Napoleon emerges as an outlier. He’s the product of a priestly culture (the “inhuman”), yet he wants to champion strength (the “superhuman”).
Nietzsche gives a brief sketch of European history, depicting it as a battle between two sets of moral codes. Before Christianity emerged, warrior-based values thrived. To Nietzsche, warrior morality embraces strength, power, conflict, and adventure as good things that allow people to express their human nature and achieve profound joy. Nietzsche thinks this moral code allows people to be their fullest selves, or “superhuman.” He argues that the Christian approach to morality, by contrast, advocates acting weak, meek, selfless, and nonviolent all the time. To Nietzsche, this is an “inhuman” way to live because it stifles human nature. He argues that overall, the priestly approach to morality has been more dominant in recent history.
Themes
17. Nietzsche asks if the battle over morals is over, and he concludes that it’s difficult to say. He thinks going beyond “Good and Evil” isn’t the same as going beyond “Good and Bad.” Nietzsche notes that thinkers need to study the history of morals further, and they should consider what’s revealed about this history through etymology. It’s also important to think about how valuable a particular moral perspective is. Obviously, the answer of which morals are better will depend upon what they’re valuable for—say, living longer, or growing stronger as a species. Nietzsche thinks that philosophers need to figure out the “hierarchy” of moral values.
Nietzsche’s ultimate aim in this essay is to show that moral codes are highly malleable, meaning that they can be changed. For example, prevailing attitudes about power-hungry, violent, and aggressive people as “evil” are a relatively recent phenomenon. Many aspects of such “evil” behavior were historically considered “good.” Back then, people who couldn’t express strength and power were simply considered “bad,” meaning less good, rather than fundamentally “evil.” This example shows that moral values have already changed a lot in the last 2,000 years. Since morals are so changeable, scholars need to think about which moral code is actually better for humanity overall rather than merely accepting which one has become dominant over time.
Themes
