Genealogy Of Morals

For centuries, mankind has been ruled by two words Ð'- good and evil. These two simple words carry with them a weight that is nearly indescribable, one so great all forms of art have attempted to express them, and entire religions are built around them. But where do these two words come from? Some philosophers claim that they are natural, evidence of something greater than ourselves instilling in us a sense of morality. Others claim they are borne of our desire to prosper in life. In Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche rejects these ideas, even rejects the notions themselves. Instead of being something natural, he claims, they are the tools of the powerful used to keep themselves in power. For Nietzsche, this immediately devalues them. I contend that he sees this concept of good and evil as philosophically useless and, even further, something to be eliminated from society.

Where Nietzsche begins, we too shall begin Ð'- the origin of the words themselves. Nietzsche's argument is based on linguistics; he examines the words themselves in many languages, and words like them. He examines at first the German "schlecht," meaning bad. He observes similar words: "schlicht;" "schlechtweg;" and "schlechterdings." All three are variations of the word simple, leading Nietzsche to the conclusion that the words are related; that at some point (Nietzsche points to around the time of the Thirty Years' War) the meaning of "schlecht" changed, and this change represents the values the German society of that time held, that the peasants, the ordinary people were, frankly, bad (28). Similarly, Nietzsche points to Latin, citing specifically malus (bad) and melas (black). Nietzsche then cites the makeup of the Roman upper and lower classes. In Roman culture, he notes, those with black hair were traditionally lower class, while the upper class was pale and blonde-haired. He traces the same ideas in Celtic and Greek culture, altogether creating the argument that the words for good and bad derivate simply from classiest notions in which the powerful had such control they could even cause the language itself to work in their favor.

But there is a difference in the words, indeed the ideas, being used now and those that were given at first. Good and bad are not the same thing as good and evil, and Nietzsche realizes this. Here, Nietzsche presents the idea of the ressentiment, the re-evaluating of one's worldview in order to make one's life more acceptable. The notions of good and evil, Nietzsche contends, no longer come from the upper class, but the class that is subjected to its power. "The "well-born" felt themselves to be "happy"; they did not have to establish their happiness artificially by examining their enemiesÐ'..." (38), Nietzsche claims. For the lower class, however, this is the only option. Therefore, they decide, understandably so, that the class that oppresses them, that hurts them, is evil. This is the reason which so many of those things which