Digesting Philosophy

Synopsis of Nietzsche's
On The Genealogy Of Morality
First Treatise: "Good and Evil", "Good and Bad"

Nietzsche does two things to disqualify morality as something to take seriously. First, he remarks about the idea that morality came from functional habits of which later became part of culture (even when the function was lost). This is lambasted as false and foolish.

He refutes the idea by announcing that morals are set by those with authority. The words noble/good stem back from class distinctions and not functionality. The bad is associated with commoners. Words that are used to express 'bad' are interchangeable with words used to denote activities for common folk. So it does not come about by function but by declaring things so arbitrarily.

He associates nobility with a can-do attitude. They use their sense of right or wrong not to avoid things entirely, but to make themselves more effective (a functional version of morality). They treat opponents not as evil counterparts but more like an opponent in a board game. He makes a comparison to predators hunting prey. They do not hate the things they hunt. It is actually quite the opposite. They love the way they taste.

The morality used by common folk is used to denote who is doing harm. One who is violent is seen as evil. The action is then made into an object that is resented as an idea of the action. But this resentment is seen as impotent. Morality is used to identify evil and dislike it, but that does not make it go away. Morality causes inaction because instead of acting on one's impulses, it requires one to be less active. Or actively being inactive.

Personally Nietzsche is displeased by the consequence a moral carries. It quiets the human spirit and domesticates it. He is not attached to morality by idealism or function. He sees little in it but a way that 'weaker' people try to hold the stronger back. He views morality as a regression. It causes people to fall into nihilism because they are bored with man. Since a moral man is neutered, they get the same respect as a house cat.

The punchline of his polemic and second point against morality is that morality does not remove the desire for revenge or pleasure. It doesn't even eradicate that these acts will happen. Since the weak are to feeble to take matters into their own hands, they design the concept of a spirit that will eventually take care of their problems. While it would be immoral for a person to take revenge or seek pleasure, there is no problem with having a god to take care of the dirty work. So these moral beings are not doing something that is functional and neither are they avoiding unjust behavior in the long run; they are just not willing/able enough to take care of their own problems or deal with them in a way that can still be pleasurable and free of resentment.

So the overall feeling is that Good/Evil is used to support passiveness and to kick problems down the road with the feeling that this behavior will be rewarded. The good/bad mindset is used to promote action and not to assign guilt or fault to individuals. And it seems that the people who assume the good/bad view point will easily manipulate those with the Good/Evil viewpoint chiefly because the Good/Evil people prize inaction and retaliate with internal ideas they keep to themselves.