Nietzsche, Slaves, Nobles, & Nature

The reading and class discussions for this week on Nietzsche’s philosophical theory was difficult to understand and believe. I realize that he believed there are two types of people: nobles and slaves. According to him, the slavish determined evil first, said no to life, were fundamentally reactive, and operated in ressentiment. On the other hand, the nobles decided what was good first and left the bad as an afterthought, said yes to life, and were active individuals. Nietzsche also claims that the slave revolt in morality serves as an inversion of noble values such as esteeming the sick, powerless, and/or ugly as beloved by God. In his mind, people should be able to just do what it is they are able and capable of doing just as the bird of prey is able to devour the lamb. However, I disagree with this notion because it would allow many deviant acts to be accepted and without repercussion and could lead to an unruly society or a nonexistent one in which everyone operates according to their own will and standards. The idea of having a world filled with just noble people seems ludicrous and impossible to occur in the present. According to Nietzsche, so many people are slavish—even those we may esteem as prominent, good, and influential people like Dr. Martin Luther King. In nature, we understand that if a lion eats a rabbit—even though we may feel sorry for the rabbit—it was just another act in the circle of life where animals will eat other hands. We realize that the lion just needed to satisfy its hunger. However, we find that when a human being kills another human being to get food while on U.S. soil we consider that individual to be evil/bad. That individual used his strength to fulfill a need just as the lion did, but would—if I understand the reading and class discussions correctly—Nietzsche think that person used his strength without restraint to survive?....

Nietzsche and Good & Evil

In our discussions this week in class, we talked about Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed that slaves or slave-like people revolted against people who saw themselves as nobles. They were people of ressentiment, or people with a sense of hostility that was directed at the nobles because they viewed themselves as good for being powerful and strong. The slavish people believed that these views the nobles had, made them evil. This came about after the revolt of the slaves. Being evil didn’t necessarily mean that the nobles were “bad” per-se, it meant that they believed that they were of higher value, almost, than the slavish people were. Take the lambs and birds of prey analogy, for instance. The birds of prey are seen as strong creatures, but in the eyes of the lambs, their strength is equivalent to evil because the lambs are being killed by the strength of the birds. The birds, however, have no idea that what they are doing is “evil”, they’re just trying to live. Can it be said, however, that the lamb could be seen as evil as well because they believe the birds of prey are evil? Assuming someone is something of an evil nature and telling people that that someone is evil seems pretty evil. It seems as if you’re trying to turn others against that thing or person, even though what they’re doing is just their way of life. I may just be confusing things way more than they actually are, but to me, this is what came from what we discussed. I’m open to a little bit of light on the subject.

Reading Assignment for next week: Karl Marx on "Alienated Labor

Here is a link to your reading assignment for next week.

The Noble Slave

All week we have been talking about the philosopher Nietzche.  This Philosopher's concepts are the hardest to grasp so far this year. This week we learned about the Nobles and Slaves and how they correlate to Evil and Good, respectively. The Nobles are near-perfect individuals: strong and good looking. The Slaves are the exact opposite with characteristics of being sickly, ugly, and powerless. Apparently sitting on top of your own success is Evil when there are "slaves" out there without their own success. Its hard to agree with this concept when you look at extreme situations. World leaders are some of the most important people in their countries they should be considered a Noble right? They represent their countries! The "slaves" of those countries are Good for living their life sick and in poverty? I cant wrap my head around it. It seems that Nietzche is insinuating that we should be "Noble Slaves": being rich and good looking, but only after you have started out poor and sickly; that is the only thing I can derive out of this philosopher. Sounds like a Cinderella story to me, a true comeback story, but what about those who cant start out at the bottom of the caste system, there has to be people at the top. Do they self sabotage themselves to go from rich to poor so they can make it to the top again? Maybe I'm not seeing the philosophy of Nietzche correctly, but if I am, honestly, its lonely at the top and I'd rather be successful and ridiculed for it than being looked upon as the Good of the world for living in poverty.

Good in both Nobles and Slaves

I see nothing wrong with being part of the noble society.  In this part of philosophical theory, I see no harm in having wealth, power, influence and strength over others.  I have no arguments against those who are weak and poor as long as they are good of heart.  There are immoral and unjust individuals that reside in both classes just as much as there are just and virtuous people in both.  I like the fact that Prof.  Johnson mentioned how Christianity, as one of the main world religions, focuses on the poor and destitute (just look at the beatitudes) instead of the powerful and wealthy.  While I am myself am a Christian and agree with this teaching of Christ, I cannot turn away from the fact that there are those people in society whether they be in a position of public office, celebrity or professional athlete who are good of heart and strive to be just individuals who contribute to society and assist those in need.  There will never be a society where there is just one social class of people; there will always be the haves and the have-nots.  It is in human nature to be this way and to think or strive for a society where everyone is equal and the wealth is spread across the board is silly.

Slaves

One of the most interesting things that we talked about in class this week was the idea of slaves, slave values, and the slave revolt in morality.  The slavish way of thinking is that the weak use their weakness as a strength to defend themselves against the powerful.  I had never thought of our society in that type of way before, but the more I pondered it, the more I began to realize that a lot of our society is made up of people with slavish thoughts, feelings, and ideas.  Our society is very good at using our weaknesses to make the powerful seem like bad people solely based on the fact that they use their power.  For example, people with hardly any money like to consider rich people to be stuck up regardless of the type person they are.  However, there are many people with a lot of money that worked very hard to earn the money they have.  They might be rich, but that does not make them a bad person.  Stereotyping people in that type of way is just one of many examples of how someone with a slave mentality acts.  The slave revolt in morality shows why slaves think this way.  A noble would say being good is being noble, powerful, healthy, happy, and beautiful, and because of all these things, God loves the nobles.  In contrast, a slave would say because God loves the slaves, they are beautiful, happy, healthy, etc.  That reversal shows why a slave would think that a rich person was bad solely because they have money.  I feel like the slave mentality is a very poor way to look at things the more I think about it, but I am definitely guilty for thinking like this.  After talking about it this week, I want to try to get out of this way of thinking.

Nobles vs Slaves

Today we finished the whole idea of Nietzche's philosophy. I would have to disagree with it for the most part. The idea of good and bad and also good and evil is a great point in this belief. Briefly to break down this, if you were not a noble(beautiful, strong, smart, etc.) you were considered bad according to the nobles. While the slaves reversed this idea to favor them. The reason why I disagree with this idea brings up the question we talked about earlier "Why not only have society of Nobles?" If we did this then the nobles would not be a noble any more they would be considered normal. So how would they continue to show they are really noble rather than just setting the bar higher for nobles and slaves. This brings up the idea that you need the slaves to keep the nobles noble. The key factor of that though is to have a society that protects the weak. Without the weak I think this philosophy would invalid.

Nobles vs. Slaves

At the very beginning of the week, I thought I understood Nietzche’s concepts and even agreed with them to some extent. Today, Friday, I am completely lost. This philosopher has confused me to no end. I get that there is a shift from “good and bad” to “good and evil”, which are now considered moral values. I even understand Nobles being strong, courageous, beautiful, and having power while the slaves are known as being sickly, weak, and ugly. This is where I get confused. Why is being strong and having power considered being evil? Does that mean that our president is evil considering they’re the “most powerful” person in the United States? I guess I grew up believing that if you are powerful that means you are successful and thinking that the two directly correlated. I know there are few flaws in believing that, such as Hitler was powerful yet he was such an evil person. But at the same time, was he not successful in his plans to kill Jews? (Quick side note: I am in no way a supporter Hitler, I was just playing Devil Advocate).  I guess in that instance I can see being powerful as an evil thing because you are influencing people in a negative type of way.  Another thing I can’t quite grasp the concepts of are the modes of evaluation. I don’t understand why saying “no” to life is a good thing. Should you not be making the most of the life you live on this Earth and taking full advantage of every opportunity presented to you? I just don’t see how saying yes is perceived as a negative thing as it makes you a Noble and being a noble is bad according to Nietzche’s slave revolt in morality. All in all, I do not really like this philosopher and his method of thinking.

Confusion on Nietzsche's Theory

Nietzsche’s theory of morality was without a doubt the most confusing to me this semester.  It just baffles me that he believes that there is no free will in humanity and people simply do what they are meant to do just like lightning “flashes”.  I think it is possible for the strong to not emphasize their strength; many times does someone who would be considered powerful might completely change their lifestyle and live a life of poverty and selflessness.  Someone as “evil” and “powerful” as Hitler could have a change of heart and become a slavish person.  Although it sounds very implausible, it is possible and has happened.  I do not think it’s right to simply say that the prey can do whatever they please just because they have the ability to.  With this kind of mindset, society would be a mess.  So I suppose in that case, the slave revolt of morality was a good thing.  Even though it, in the opinion of Nietzsche, is an incorrect look on life, it still allows for a safe and orderly society.  If we simply threw morality to the wind and allowed people to do whatever they can due to their strength or weakness, only the strong would survive and then the strong will be the only ones left.  In that scenario, the strong of the earth will have to fight and compete with one another and thus some of the strong will become weak and the competition will ensue once more.  It is a vicious cycle that could never be resolved.  Judging from Nietzsche’s life, he was a very tortured person and his philosophical views definitely reflect on that.  I believe his view on life and morality is cynical and without any perspective on hope in life.  It is interesting, however, to see a unique perspective on morality.

A Nation of Slaves

In class we discussed Nietzsche distinction between good and bad and good and "evil".  As we began to discuss the topic it became aware that Nietzsche beliefs of these distinctions between the two categories displays fault in Democracy and the Christian faith. Taking that Nietzsche would view both Democracy and the Christian faith as people with a Slave mindset who are weak he would view the United States of America as weak nation as a whole.

In class I proposed the thought that maybe those of power or those who are noble kept the weak or the slaves as being weak by not allowing them certain rights. The example I gave was of the idea of slavery in the United States and the slave owners keeping the slaves from reading because knowledge is power. Nietzsche would view my response of that of a slave simply because the weak can not possess characteristics which they do not have and nobles wouldn't have to keep the weak down.

This gave me the thought that I do agree with Nietzsche belief of pre moral values time and a time where moral values became relevant. I came up with this thought through thinking through the history of the United States from slavery, the Jim Crow Era, and the Civil Rights Movement, and even the Black Lives Matter Movement. Although I might not view it as Nietzsche does. I view it as those here in the United States who are considered the powerful and noble are really amongst the weak. Our founders of the country were slaves to the nobles of Britain who then exerted their weakness as strength against the slaves. They then began to make laws in the centuries to come that would only continue to keep their weaknesses as strengths. In all I understand why Nietzsche would view people as slaves its obvious that the United States has bread an entire nation of slaves.

Nietzche and Weak vs. Strong

We read, “The Genealogy of Morals,” this week in class and discussed the beliefs of Nietzche. Nietzche believed that there were two classes of people in the world. The first class being strong, brave, and noble. These people believe that it is ultimately bad to be weak. The second class of people are the “weak” people or as he call it, “the slaves.” These people are described as, ‘ressentiment,’ which refers to the inability to say yes to life. Life meaning to be strong and conquering everything. Because of their weakness, the slave people decided to revolt in morality and say that they’re powerful also. An example of this is when. a weak person could tell a strong person that they shouldn’t hurt them because they’re weak. In all actuality, the strong and there’s nothing wrong with that. The weak manipulated the strong.

Genealogy Of Moral

This week in class, we went over Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals. The Genealogy of Morals in the pe- moral value is good and bad. Whereas, in the moral value sense it is good vs evil. If I were to choose one to live in, it will most likely be the moral value side. This is because I know that I am a slave, not a noble. The moral value is way of saying that slavish people are considered to be good and the nobles are evil. The slaves are the ones who are loved by God and are accepted because they are normal, weak, and ugly. Instead of using these faults as bad or a setback, they invert them so that they are their strengths. This way of living is great. I will make all the nobles seem very bad and talk down on them. Especially those nobles who use their power for bad. The slaves are very intelligent with their ways of thinking, even though it seems to be ridiculous. Anyways, if you could choose be pre- moral value way of life or moral value way of life, which would you choose.

Friedrich Nietzsche

In class we talked about Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy. His philosophy is based off of the finding of where did moral values come in existence? He found that it came about when the slave’s mentality changed and turned the conversation from good and bad to good and evil because they had built up ressentiment. I think this is an interesting concept because it just shows how all it takes is a group of similar minded people to band together to turn something that really didn’t have much significance into something that can change the moral values of society. I think it also shows how people seem to do things in favor of themselves. If the slaves were not in the position they were in, they would not be concerned with that which they did not possess. If they were not as weak in compared to the nobles, or any other less fortunateness, then they would have not cared to have a revolt in the first place. In contrast, I think it was important for them to have the revolt because if they did not we would not have the moral values we have now. We would not be concerned with the consequences of an action. I think this would cause a world in which no one had to be responsible for their actions and everyone would do what they wanted whenever they wanted. In a sense, this revolt caused there to be order in the world and laws to be a part of our everyday life.

Nietzche

This week we discussed Nietzche and how he believes morality has evolved. I was most interested in the idea that the noble class was considered good while the slaves were considered bad. While most people would agree that rich is better than poor and beautiful is better than ugly, I see no morality in these ideas. Noble values are still ideals that we look for in our lives, but they have nothing to do with morality. I also thought it was odd that slaves were considered bad and unhappy; that they were not able to say yes to life like the nobles were. This idea is ridiculous. While I agree that the poor or sick are not able to experience complete and absolute happiness- like Aristotle’s idea of Eudaimonia- I do believe that they are able to enjoy life. In my opinion it is the slaves who are saying yes to life. The nobles have been handed life on a pretty platter. It is the slaves who decide, despite the bad that occurs in their lives, that they want to continue living. I also thought it was interesting how it scares the majority of us to consider living our same lives over and over again. If it scares us we know we have a slave mentality. I am frightened by the idea because it means that our lives and our choices lack any meaning. I could live knowing that every decision I was making was already known, but it would be difficult to grasp the idea that it would be on a continuous loop. I believe we all need to think that there is an end to our lives. If we kept going, if we believed we had no free will, and just repeated our lives, what would be the point in trying? I’d curl up on the couch and simply think “Who cares. It’s not my choice.” Of course our human nature makes us move and work and desire knowledge. Certainly there has to be a reason for us.

Post-Fall Break Reading Assignment: Nietzsche

Here is a link to Nietzsche's essay from The Genealogy of Morals, which you should have read before returning to class on Monday, October 26.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism is one of the most influential and well-known moral theories. Although it has received a lot of criticisms for it, every person can use it to apply to whether something is morally right or morally wrong. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. Consequentialism argues that what is right or wrong depends on the consequences of an action and that the more good consequences there are, the better the action. Utilitarians believe that to make life better, one must act morally and by increasing the good things in life (pleasure) and minimizing the bad things (pain). This is how Utilitarianism is also a form of Hedonism. 

The two forms of Utilitarianism are Rule and Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarians believe that whatever we decide to do, we must think of the action that will create the greatest utility. In their view, a person should act in accordance to produce the best overall results and that it should be applied "situation by situation." On the other hand, Rule Utilitarians stress the importance of moral rules. According to Rule Utilitarians, an action is only justified if it conforms to a moral rule. According to this perspective, a person should judge whether something is morally right by looking to see if it follows a set of moral "rules."

The main difference between Act and Rule Utilitarianism is that Act Utilitarians apply it directly to individual actions while Rule Utilitarians focus on a set of rules and then evaluate individual actions in regards to the rules. I agree with Rule Utilitarianism because in this day and age, it is the most practical. 

Utilitarianism in Our Society

John Stuart Mill & Immanuel Kant

The past couple of weeks in class have been quite interesting. We have been studying the philosophical theories of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, two philosophers with completely opposite views. Mill believes the consequences of one's actions provide the moral significance and value to those actions, while Kant stands behind the notion that one's motive and will is more important and offers the moral worth. In all honesty, I believe it's both. I have a tendency to lean more towards Kant's perspective that the will, the duty behind one's actions plays a slightly more significant role in justifying the morality of their action or decision simply because it deals more with the heart of the matter (pun slightly intended). If one's heart is not in the right place, if they do not possess a "good will," how can they be expected to make moral decisions? Without an understanding that humans do indeed have a moral obligation to be kind and treat one another fairly, we would have no reason to behave morally. However, there are also instances that we do "the wrong thing for the right reason." In these instances, the consequences may justify not obliging to one's moral duty. It's almost like a grilled cheese sandwich. Bread is good. Cheese is good. But together they are magical.

Greatest Happiness Principle

During Wednesday’s symposium one of the discussions brought up was Mill’s greatest happiness principle. This principle states that actions are morally good in as much as they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. At first, when I was learning about this I thought it sounded great and was finally something I agreed with. It made me realize that most of the time whenever I decide something one of the questions I ask myself is, "Is this action going to affect other people’s happiness?" Which is exactly what this principle means. However, the example of the trolley problem was also mentioned and the question was asked: "Even if there were five people on one side and one on the other what if the one was a baby?” What determines the greatest amount of people? Quantity or quality? If you killed those random five people yes that would definitely affect more people because it is a bigger number, but wouldn’t killing a baby as well? This question has stumped me ever since I heard it. I still don’t know the right answer. Sometimes I think killing the five people and saving the baby would be correct because it would create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. I believe a baby’s death is far sadder and mourned for because it was only a baby. He or she didn’t even get the chance to live their life. But then I think that those five people’s lives mattered too. They may not have been as young but they still had loved ones or were cared for just as much as the baby. All in all, I believe there is not a right or wrong answer; it is just a matter of opinion.