[Angelos]

I am curious as to your opinions on Nietzsche's philosophy, especially on the slave and master morality. Any thoughts on them?

For short explanation: For Nietzsche, the master morality prevalent in Antique values ''good'' against ''bad'' (useful might be a better term) and wordly against otherworldy, an actor compares everything to himself and sees himself as a value in and of itself, whereas slave morality, the counterreaction to this, values ''good'' against ''evil'' and values otherwordly against wordly. Note that Nietzsche himself supported neither of these, but seeked instead a new system of morality (or lack of it), though he collapsed before finishing his work.

[eagleseven]

I think he was onto something, particularly considering how religious leaders consistently ignore their own followers' code of ethics. The master/slave conflict is very much in play with modern ethics.

For instance, the Pope can endlessly forgive the pedophiles within his own orders because they are personally useful to him, yet continues to condemn his followers who use birth control. One could argue that, with the doctrine of Papal infallibility, the Catholic Church has cemented the Pope's master morality, while continuing to write tombs of slave morality the followers must follow.

I do not think, however, that every code of ethics can be easily split into Nietzsche's neat categories...he was biased by his environment (Imperial Germany), as we all are.

[Axion004]

I would like to read more about him and how he thinks. He seems to have some good ideas.

[ischuldt]

I think it's interesting, but I'm not really sure how useful it is. To me it seems like he's saying there are those who believe what his helpful or good to them is good, and what is not is bad. Then there are those who believe that what is helpful to all is good, and what is not is bad. That makes perfect sense.

I don't think you can really argue that one of those things is necessarily better than the other unless you establish some kind of goal that needs to be obtained. I think maybe the goal should be to establish a society where any one person can be both slave and master. Or maybe a better way of saying it, understanding what morals truely are slave worthy and which are not.

I guess my philosophy would be to follow slave morality when I'm among slaves and master morality when I'm around masters.

[Wittshell]

Wasn't the slave and master morality his theory on the genealogy of morality? I read that book and I thought it made alot of sense.

[Zombicide]

Nietzsche was good for a few quotes e.g. "The noble soul has reverence for itself" or "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything".

That is all, nothing else good about him ... or Redbeard. They should have gotten raped with 20 inch AIDS dicks for their brilliant "philosophy".

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by Wittshell To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wasn't the slave and master morality his theory on the genealogy of morality?

Yup. It seems he was coming into some kind of conclusion/theory about future morality and its preferable course, but unfortunately he never finished his work on the subject.

[Niaurus]

	Originally Posted by Zombicide To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nietzsche was good for a few quotes e.g. "The noble soul has reverence for itself" or "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything". That is all, nothing else good about him ... or Redbeard. They should have gotten raped with 20 inch AIDS dicks for their brilliant "philosophy".

Are you serious? Two quotes and that's all the best about Nietzsche?

I'd say the bigger half of "The Gay Science" made my life... And also other random thoughts from him truly deserves appreciation.

[Thrawn]

Nietzsche is interesting, he is in most ways polar opposite to my worldview, but I do like his work and thought process and a few of his theories.

[Tristan]

I'm a big fan of the master and slave morality models. I think they have more merit today than ever. When Nietzsche used slave and master to delineate the Christian and the Roman, I was thinking it was crazy to draw such a simple picture of so vast an expanse of time and civilization. Pop-philosophy.

But I've come to believe they sort respectively into the modern liberal and conservative mindsets. Nothing I've ever read speaks better language about the modern era's polarity than Nietzsche. Liberalism is definitely slave morality. Conservatism is definitely master.

How?

• Liberalism judges a society's virtue on human issues: for instance, how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. An Iron Age empire like Rome which throws all the beggars into the arena is unforgivable. The fall of Rome proceeded with a certain justice from the general disinterest in protection and human life implied by Roman behavior. Modern Western countries, with their strong protections for their consumers, their laborers, and their destitute, are caring and sustainable societies. Whatever their weaknesses on economic fronts, this humanism will serve them well. As slave morality, liberalism considers the prices paid for growth and its ultimate futility in bettering men's lives. With every step forward, we are called to reach back and pull along those left behind.
• Conservatism judges a society's virtue as a matter of worth (not human issues): most to-the-point, its productivity. Rome's cruelty can be forgiven in light of the immense output of its citizens and the perseverance of its elite. The erosion of both of these caused the fall of Rome. Conservatism perceives a similar erosion of its choice virtues among modern Western countries, into obsessions with unimportant things. It predicts decay where liberalism predicts sustainability. As master morality, conservatism scoffs at sustainability and considers adaptation and growth the ultimate defense against all natural forces arrayed against men.