why i dislike slave morality

I will try to explain what I believe is slave morality, and why I dislike it.

Firstly, slave moralists dislike power. Their philosophy is that power corrupts. Therefor power is bad, and even some think weakness is good.
I believe, without power, there would be no good possible. Now, to contradict themselves, they say that the highest power, God, is perfectly moral and good. Also slave moralists don’t want people to own weapons, or know how to fight. They want to disarm everyone. To them everything is a threat if it is not part of their system. Utilitarianism is a big thing in the modern values, but this is simply mob worship. The best people are a minority, yet here we are told we must worship the majority. If something only pleases ourselves, it is considered selfish or bad. Self is bad. But the selves are good. Everyone has the right to live, even if they are an asshole. They don’t need to earn their rights, they just get them at birth. The mob makes the rules, and the rights.

I concur with what you said. I dislike slave morality as well. It is an inversion of morals. (Wish I had my Master/Slave morality notebook with me, so I could add more fuel to the fire… damn it!)

The Doorman





I think what you are doing is creating what is called a straw-man argument.

I’ve seen this before. You win the argument…because the straw-man doesn’t really have a voice.

What type of morality do you like?

Is there a type of person that you don’t like? - Why?


I’m not familiar with the phrase slave morality.

I have not read Nietzsche but apparently he wrote of master-slave morality.

Is this where you erected your windmills?

Master-slave morality
is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche’s works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: ‘Master morality’ and ‘slave morality’. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions. What he meant by ‘morality’ deviates from common understanding of this term. For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture. This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two types of moral valuation. Master-slave morality provides the basis of all exegesis of Western thought. While slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, master morality values pride, strength, and nobility.

[size=112]What do you picture yourself as?

Is there a person who follows the structure of slave or master morality?

Could you be more specific?[/size]



Uh, Bill, he’s not refuting anything. He’s explaining why he doesn’t like something. I don’t think strawman applies here.

You are correct, but his post was hysterical. Made me crack up - especially the last picture.

But he absolutely pointed to the right place. Genealogy of Morals is a great starting point for delving deeper into this, as is Beyond Good and Evil. (I personally find even English translations of Nietzsche difficult to comprehend, so I find more benefit in taking courses where his work is “spoon fed” to me/explained in clear and modern language… He writes in a very contemporary style - so if you are someone from modern times, his references are… not helpful. At least to me. When it is explained to me what he meant, I am able to go back and see where the messages are - to confirm the meanings explained to me are accurate… but trying to make heads/tails of his writing is a task. I almost felt the same thing when reading The Price by Machiavelli.)

The teaching company has a great program on him. I can’t recommend you buy it, as the price is high… but if you can find streams or downloads, its definitely worth your time

The Doorman


[size=112]Is she saying, Slaves are kind, Masters are motherfuckers.

I am kind.[/size]



Very good, for someone who has two disgusting animals in his profile!

The problem will occur if you as power take raw force of the state and not the moral people.

Iron states (systems) are needed by those who were lacking morals, like Hitler and Stalin. All others were for a sort of liberal monarchy, like Friedrich the Great and Schopenhauer.

Slave morality itself is a straw man.
For example, power is not control over everyone else’s life. Power is about how much vital energy we have. It’s about how healthy and strong we are. It has to do with mental and bodily completion. The “straw-man-power” is all about enforcing your will over the poor little mobs so that they don’t have what they want.

What the fuck ?

I was always thinking that power is, precisely, the ability to predict things. And I don’t know what to do with abstract definitions of it.

Strength of the will and health are two crucial conditions. But depth is the result we are looking for.

Will to power is not, there is a trump card hidden there, arrived by sleight of hand, it is a conversion, of sorts: a power from will. It’s hidden, and inverted, so as to deceive. Did not nietzche imply that a pious attitude did just that? It has become a commonplace office mannerism of political correctness. It’s no longer matters what you think, you have been supposedly defanged. Oh, human, oh so human.

I have faith in others.

Do I want everyone to own a gun or know how to fight? No.

Why? Fighting hurts people. It doesn’t help anyone. Guns hurt people. They don’t help people.

Do I want people to have power?

The power to live a fulfilling life - Yes. The power to forgive and love - Yes. The power to live without fear - Yes. The power to be rational - Yes.

The power to manipulate - No. The power to kill millions - No. The power to be ignorant - No.

I want people to have power, but not powers that serve no good.

Wanting to help others is selfish. Wanting to help self is selfish. Wanting to not be selfish is selfish. There’s no escaping it, so there’s no point in judging it.

Utilitarianism is respecting the worth of others, though I often see people who don’t value themselves find shelter within this philosophy.

We create rights individually and collectively. It’s all relative. Someone’s spouse is given different rights by the individual than someone’s neighbour. No harm, no foul. The only time rights matter is when two parties disagree upon a right, X has crossed Y’s line, but X denies Y has a line. If both parties agreed or disagreed on the line, all is well.

 Yes, it would be great to have more people like you. However, some people in positions of power do not excercise utalitarian principles equivically.they are corruptible.


youtube.com/watch?feature=p … 40EsEVU1Wk

Watch this video.

Tell me who is slave and who is master?

I think you will find a morality in your head.

Don’t come out here. Your drugs won’t work.

The drugs don’t work. They just make it worse.[/size]


Be careful what image you choose, Bill. :wink: Sometimes, things are just not what they seem. The guy on his hands could be the one in control, while the one holding the reins may be the one servicing him.


That’s pretty standard slave logic.

You screwed up the meaning of the word selfish.

No it means only respecting majorities even if they crush minorities; even if the minorities were right.

We must ‘serve’ good. Being a slave towards goodness, is the epitome of slave-goodness.

Sorry, Dan~, I was stopped when you switched from slave morality to slave ‘moralists.’ There is a difference. Someone with a slave “mentality” will live by the rules of slave “morality”–but what is slave morality?

Does it mean that slaves find their ‘place’ as slaves to be just? That their lives can only be valued as slaves?

You switch streams again, when you say, “Also slave moralists don’t want people to own weapons, or know how to fight. They want to disarm everyone. To them everything is a threat if it is not part of their system.”

What exactly is it you’re trying to get at here?

Faith is the wrong word - I believe in people.

I believe in people because I think we’re predictable, can mutually thrive and have but one major adversary, ourselves. We don’t want to be our own adversary, and I’ve witnessed people resolve this conflict.

I think you’re missing the context.

In the current day and age, people attack other people. I understand self defense and realize that people desire the power of defense which a gun provides. It was a bad example.

What I’m saying is there’s certain powers, that have no ‘positive’ applications. I don’t want people to have this power, because we could ONLY use it for bad. We make mistakes and it’s not rational to sorround ourselves with objects that can only do bad.

Is it slave mentality to avoid giving your friend a timed explosive that is set detonate in 10 minutes? It’s power. Your friend’s rational and a master of his actions… But what could he possibly do with it that’s desirable?

relating to or characterized by self-interest

That’s the way I’m using it.

Utilitarianism is about striving towards a balance which results in the highest sum of happiness and lowest amount of suffering amongst a group.

If anything, it’s about increasing majorities and reducing minorities. If no intereference was made, we’d most likely still have a majority and minority, it’s just that overall, we’d be lesser for it.

Also, Utilitarianism would likely result in someone getting 80% of their ideals, and another 72%. Not like x amount of 100%, and y amount of 0%.

I think we’re all slaves to an indifferent master. I don’t really see your point here.

“There where the masses rule, they tyrannize the exceptions who then lose the faith in themselves and become nihilists” - Nietzsche

I can assure you that all nobility, without an exception was mobbed by the masses.

I think Joe Schmoe only sees modern ‘goodness’. Nothing more, nothing less.