Nietzsche’s Critique of English Psychologists on Morality
Nietzsche’s Critique of English Psychologists
1. Nietzsche’s Interest in English Psychologists
Nietzsche finds English psychologists interesting because they are the only ones who have addressed the genesis of morality in their works. He questions their search for the origin of moral values in habit, forgetfulness, or causal association of ideas. He suspects a secret instinct to belittle man, a disillusioned idealist’s pessimism, spitefulness, a subconscious rejection of Platonism and Christianity, or a prurient taste for outlining the absurdity of human existence. Nietzsche views them as cold and boring, but he respects their bold search for truth, even if it is rough, ugly, or disgusting.
2. Lack of Historical Spirit
Nietzsche criticizes these psychologists for their utter lack of historical spirit. They argue that altruistic actions were originally considered good by those who benefited, and that habit led to forgetting this assessment’s origin. Nietzsche argues that this theory is erroneous, ignoring the fact that only the powerful are in a position to establish values, and they do so through self-promotion.
The powerful, noble individuals valued themselves and their work as good, in contrast to everything low, vulgar, and plebeian. The opposition between “good” and “bad” marked the distance between a superior and an inferior species. The identification of “good” with “unselfish” emerged with the decline of aristocratic values and the rise of herd instinct, reaching its peak in modern Europe.
3. Contradiction in English Psychology
Nietzsche also highlights the contradiction in English psychologists’ theory: how could the origin of what is considered good for its benefit be forgotten if it never ceased to benefit them? He finds Spencer’s identification of “good” and “useful” psychologically sustainable, but not necessarily true.
4. Philological Evidence
Nietzsche argues that, initially, “good” expressed strength, moral nobility, and power, as opposed to “bad,” denoting vulgarity, simplicity, and moral turpitude. This, he claims, is the result of unprejudiced philological analysis.
5. Designation of the Powerful
The powerful are designated by words that express their superiority: “the powerful lords,” “the rulers,” “the rich,” “the owners,” or a typical feature of their character: “the true,” “the warriors,” “the blonde,” “the men of divine race.” This is in contrast to the liar, the cowardly, the dark, and the ordinary man.
6. Priestly Caste and the Shift in Values
Political prominence and soul go hand in hand until the supreme caste is the priestly caste. This caste contrasts the terms “pure” and “impure” as distinguishing features, and later, “good” and “bad” in a broader sense. The priestly caste initially uses “pure” and “impure” in a symbolic sense. Their unhealthy habits lead to neurasthenia, a cure much more dangerous than the disease itself. With the priests, everything becomes dangerously and interestingly wicked.
7. Conflicting Value Systems: Warriors vs. Priests
Nietzsche presents two antithetical value systems: that of the warrior caste and that of the priestly caste. The knightly-aristocratic values are based on a strong constitution and activities like war, adventure, hunting, and fighting. The priestly assessment is determined by different factors, and things go badly when war appears.
The confrontation between the two breeds is inevitable. The priests, due to their impotence and hatred fueled by resentment, plan revenge by inverting values. With the Jews began the slave revolt, a revaluation inherited by Christianity and still prevalent today.
Question: How did the priesthood gain the authority to set values?