Nietzshce despises morality because it stifles the will to power, ascending life, and life in general. The morality itself stems from peoples who were weak and oppressed, but because their numbers grew large, their morality eventually triumphed and ended up dominating all peoples.
Nietzsche wants humanity to go back to an age of bein ‘beyond good and evil’ aka to obliterate morality. Nietzsche wants the higher men to readopt a master morality, which is a morality that emphasizes ‘good and bad’ rather than ‘good and evil.’
Nietzsche sees that slave morality, or the morality of today, only benefits the weak and creates a system where all higher beings are trapped in a world dominated by the herd, who are not exclusively the weak in general but include them sometimes.
He wants man to transvalue values and create a new world where the higher men can benefit through master morality. He knows mankind will become completely worthless if the Roman values do not once again come into power soon.
There seems to be much ado about nothing.
Wow that means Nietzsche wants to create a new slave mentality and morality… In other words: Same character just a different name and face.
Nietzsche has no desire to create a new Slave Morality. He sees nothing wrong with Christianity in that regard, in Will to Power he constantly states that it is not one’s objective to destroy Christianity. He is only interested in seeing a ressurection of a new Master Morality and Master Race. He has no interest in a new way for slaves to think.
Well said.
Master morality and Master race? That is not a slave mentality? Masters are just as much slaves as slaves are. In his work he is still creating slave mentality he is just dressing it up in different clothes.
Ha, I was not aware that masters were slaves. I guess thats why slaves do all the work and masters do as they please. Thanks for enlightening me.
Too much ado about nothing. Let´s honour it by doing nothing about it (but not about nothing as that would be something).
I don´t know why we´re discussing Nietzsche, but:
I think masters end up more as slaves because it is they who become dependent upon there sevants who are doing all the creative, sustaining work. I don´t know how big a role this played in his overall “slave morality”, which was presumably mainly the weak´s opportunity for mental exercise and metaphysical rationalisation/superstition compelling the “strong” to obey. I think Nietzsche did praise this achievement, yet persisted to call the slaves weak and the subdued strong strong. Having got the better of the strong, aren´t the weak really the strong.
I guess over time the slave morality served a universally destructive level - this is what Nietzsche despised, and hoped the real “strong” would break past again, back into their own worldy morality. Having helped themselves at first, the weak are content (or simply too inherently weak) with increasing mediocrity and resentment.
What Standard said is better than my reply could have been.
Don’t mistake Nietzsche’s master and slave morality with masters and slaves themselves. Master and slave morality is a kind of morality, not “whatever the master and slave believe to be moral, respectively”. For Nietzsche, master morality is the view that power and strength are good, that self-determination is good, that yeah-saying to life is good. Slave morality, on the other hand, is the view that meagerness and humility are good, subordination is good, weakness is good, martyrdom is good.
Nietzsche despised Christianity because, as he saw it, it was the archtype of slave morality - yet, at the height of the Christian era (dark ages to enlightenment) the Church most certainly was master, a tyrannical one, over the masses. So we had a master elite preaching slave morality. This is the point I’m making - that a master’s morality is not necessarily “master morality”.
but, even so the master morality brooks no competition, those that are not with it, are subject to its moral punishment, must be removed or conquered. Any adherence to any social morality creates a master/slave.
it does not matter that is is a good morality it only matters that it has no room for others. This creates the beginning of a dominant group. If all humans followed the same moral doctrine then there still would be a superior dominating leader group within. Masters over the slaves.
It sure does. I’m just point out that this division is not necessarily also a division between master morality and slave morality, either of which could create the same social division without the other.
So basically the Old Boy supports the same system just dressed up in a different way.
I have always had to take him with a grain of salt. A unhealthy small man creating words of super man. Now there is a bit of physcholgical mental building up. In other words; Is his words his way of making him super human? Compensating for lack of physical? If so then how does one actually aproach his words? As truth or as manipulative?
Is the “Old Boy” Nietzsche?
Indeed he was an unhealthy man, at least in the last decade of his life. Most people blame this on syphilis, but you can see his ego inflating with each book he writes up until he reaches his “breakdown”. Who knows what he thought of himself. Delusions of grandeur? Definitely! The superman? I don’t think so. I think he saw himself more like Zarathustra - a failed attempt, however close he came.
People really ought to take him with a grain of salt. He bellowed out a lot of hot air, however charismatic his bellowing was. He is very subject to interpretation, and in my humble opinion, he is not given enough of the critical opposition he is due (for one thing, for someone who speaks so passionately against the resentment of the slave mentality, he sure seemed to harbor a lot of resentment himself).
I don’t think he supports the same system either way. I think he would support a system based on master morality with the justification that only such a system, with its share of slaves, moves man forward as a whole - towards the superman. A system based on slave morality leads to decadence and ultimately self-destruction. He would see the slaves of the former system as a worthwhile price to pay for the advancement of the whole.
DISCLAIMER: This is Nietzsche’s views, not mine! 
What was important about the moment his breakdown began was that, when seeing a weary old horse (getting flogged I think), he felt an overwhelming sense of pity - an emotion we all know how much he condemned! So there he became painfully aware of his humanity (as opposed to the Overman), as if all his labours had proved fruitless to even himself. That moment symbolizes a depressing failure to live up to what he preached, shattering his delusion of grandeur. He was one of the rabble after all.
Ha, it’s like women gossiping about Nietzsche. Your interpretation of how the slaves overcame the masters is completely wrong by the way.
Good gossip tho.
Please fill me in on your idea of the slaves overcoming the masters.
If he had taken it a few steps further though he would see that without emotion the human becomes a slave.
And Yes Gib the old boy is Nietzsche
Without decadence how many inventions would there be? How many comforts would not have been available to him if not for that aspect of humanity? I for one am quite thrilled to have indoor plumbing. I really do need to get a toilet seat that stays warm . 
Dismissing any aspect of humanity wether slave master or other creates not a super human but, an inhuman. It comes down to; control aspects in order to keep them as tools.