Write 4 page essay on the topic According to Nietzsche, what did good and bad originally man in early heroic Western society Who (according to Nietzsche) re-valued this original meaning and changed it into good and evil What.
That is, ‘good’ was linked with the superior, privileged and noble, whereas ‘bad’ was linked with the common low and working-class (Guay, 96).
Nevertheless, the offspring of the low class started resenting being inferior. they started resenting being ‘bad.’ Their hatred towards the upper-class led to a “radical changing of their ideals. Meaning ‘good’ and ‘bad’ started to reverse in meaning so that now ‘good’ defined the common, poor low, and inferior, whereas ‘bad’ now was for the powerful, rich, privileged and superior. In this manner, the deprived, sick, helpless and poor became virtuous, whereas the superior, noble and wealthy became wicked (Guay, 96). This transformation of values is likely when the hatred of the lesser classes for the powerful turns out to be so huge that they get reparation just in imagining or building a diverse moral system. It is this building of a contrasting moral system that is referred by Nietzsche as the slave morality. Thus, so that the powerless can have a better feeling of the circumstances that they are in, they build a morality for themselves, which is a slave morality, where the lesser are ‘good’ while the dominant are ‘evil.’
Nietzsche expresses his dissatisfaction with the psychologists who have attempted to give the origin of morality. They say that they are historians of morality. however they do not have a historical spirit. Their theories propose that originally individuals gain from altruism actions of others would applaud the actions and refer to them as ‘good.’ That means, what was initially ‘good’ and useful were taken as one and the same. With time, the genealogists propose, that the original association be forgotten, and the habit of referring to altruism actions ‘good’ resulted to the conclusion that they were somehow good of and in themselves (Guay, 97).
Nietzsche does not agree with this account. He