Master Vs. Slave Morality

Something I found interesting that that brought up was.

“Can one be a master… Be a ruler… Do ruler things…and have slaves… and have a “Slave morality”?

I would say No. For Nietzsche action is proof. In Nietzsche’s eyes if one is truly a master, and believe himself to be above others and to look down on slaves in despise then they cannot have slave morality. For they are the noble men, the ones who have their own free will, those who are not made for pity, and are the heroes.

But then he contradicts this with saying:

“I add immediately that in all the higher and more mixed cultures there also appear attempts at mediation between these two moralities, and yet more often the interpenetration and mutual misunderstanding of both and at times the occur directly alongside each other---even in the same human being, within a single soul” (pg. 76).  

The way Nietzsche makes it appear as if no way could someone who is a slave, ruler, someone who owns slaves and does the things of a true ruler have the morality of that in which he rises above. But then he goes to say, “Oh but by the way guys these two moralities can exist in one person, the same soul.

I also found it interesting to learn the differences between “good” and “bad versus “good” and “evil”.

For in the master morality “good” is considered to be “noble” or the desired outcome, and “bad” is considered to be shameful, even disgraceful.   According to slave morality, those who embrace the idea of “evil” thus inspire fear. They allow others to determine how things will be for them out of fear of rising up and taking control of their own life and their own morals. They show pity, patience, humility, and friendliness. They do not have free will, and they fear to seek out what they could be for themselves. “Wherever slave morality becomes preponderant, language tends to bring the words “good and “stupid” close together” (pg 78). This is because even they cannot see that they are being suppressed, that they do not have free will. They are blind. Such a morality is not honored by those of the master morality.

“Slave morality needs an opposite and external world; it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to be able to act at all, --- its action is, from the ground up, reaction” (pg 82.)

“The reverse is the case with the noble manner of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks out its opposite only in order to say “yes” to itself still more gratefully and more jubilantly---its negative concept “low” “common” “bad” is only an after-birth, a pale contrast image in relation to its positive basic concept” (pg 87).

What this tells me is the only time that a person who holds true to master morality will only seek out opposition in order to prove they are right and above the one who they feel is wrong. Whereas with the person who holds slave morality close they seek out opposition as a source to base their own interpretations off of. A slave morality individual will look outward for interpretations, looking for reason to justify their claims and the way they feel.  A master morality character will already have their minds set and they will merely only be trying to convince other of their interpretations because for them, they are right and everyone else is wrong.

“If you had to repeat every action forevermore, what would you change?”

If I felt that everything I did now would continue to happen to me forevermore, I would not change anything. If I change one thing, it will affect another. I can make good, or I could make bad choices. If I make choices that will lead me in the right direction, there will always be a tempting choice later on to lead me in the wrong direction. It is a never ending battle, and I would just choose to not do anything differently. One way or another, nothing lasts forever, and if it repeated forevermore then so be it.