Nietzsche_on_Morality-_2_edition


Чтобы посмотреть этот PDF файл с форматированием и разметкой, скачайте его и откройте на своем компьютере.
Firstpublishedas
ForSheilaandourbeautifulchildren,
Sam,William,andCelia
Prefaceandacknowledgementstothesecondedition
Prefaceandacknowledgementstothefirstedition
Badconscience:internalizedcruelty(16
Themoralizationofconsciencethrough
religion(19
Prefaceandacknowledgements
tothesecondedition
Inthemorethantenyearssincethe
rsteditionofthisbookappeared,
substantialsecondaryliteratureoverthelastdecade,andhasalsolargely
triumphedasthestandardreadingofNietzsche
sphilosophicalorientation,
atleastintheAnglophoneworld(ithasmadesomeinroadsinsome
non-Anglophoneliteraturesaswell[especiallyFrenchandPortugese],
thoughthedistortingin
uenceofHeidegger
screativeappropriationsof
Overthecourseofmorethanadecade,Ihaveacquiredmanydebts,
andIhopethefollowinglistofphilosopherswhohelpedmewillnot
omittoomanydeservingofthanks:MarkAlfano,LanierAnderson,Jessica
Berry,MalcolmBudd,MaudemarieClark,JustinCoates,JustinClarke-
Doane,JoãoConstâncio,JohnDoris,MichaelForster,SebastianGardner,
Prefaceandacknowledgements,secondedition
philosophicaleruditionaboutGermanphilosophyandcultureofthe
regularlyinthereadinggroupovertheyears:NirBen-Moshe,Jaime
Edwards,RogerEichorn,GuyElgat,ClaireKirwin,SantiagoMejia,and
DanielTelech.IamalsoindebtedtoTelechforexcellentresearch
assistanceinpreparingthesecondedition.
Formyentireprofessionalcareer,Ihavemademyformalacademic
homeinalawschool;intheUnitedStates,wherelegaleducationisan
interdisciplinaryaffair,lawschoolsprovideanunusuallyattractive
Prefaceandacknowledgements
tothefirstedition
Ithas,ofcourse,becomefashionablelatelytoemphasizethat
yatthe
beginningofthisstudy.
destroyedafterhisdeath,andthatitwasonlytheinterventionofothers
Portionsof
BeyondGoodandEvil,
HistoryofPhilosophyQuarterly
10(1993):
70,areincorporatedintoChapter6.Reproducedbykindpermissionof
theUniversityofIllinoisPress.
Portionsof
Forcommentsonsomeorallofthemanuscript,orhelpfuldiscussion,I
amgratefultoKenGemes,ChristopherJanaway,JoshuaKnobe,Maurice
Leiter,RichardPosner,JohnRichardson,MathiasRisse,NeilSinhababu,
JamesQ.Whitman,AllenWood,andPaulWoodruff.MauriceLeiter,in
particular,greatlyimprovedtheclarityandreadabilityofthemanuscript.
ThanksalsotoThomasBrobjerforsharingwithmethefruitsofhis
forthestimulusofherworkandcollegialityoverthelastdecade,butalso
TheBirthofTragedy
TheCaseofWagner
Daybreak:ThoughtsonthePrejudicesofMorality
EcceHomo
OntheGenealogyofMorality
TheGayScience
Human,AllTooHuman
SämtlicheWerke:KritischeStudienausgabe
in15Bänden
1Introduction
(1966:342).Hesituateshisown
ofpsychiatry,
genealogy,
ndsnotthe
xedmeaningofatext,oroftheworld,but
(especiallycontemporaryones)want
continuitywith
onlythe
sciences(HardM-Naturalists);othersseek
continuitywith
successfulscience,naturalorsocial(SoftM-Naturalists).SoftM-Naturalism,
asweshallsee,isthedominantstrandinphilosophy(andmostimportant
UnliketheM-Naturalistswhodrawontheactual
ofestablished
thispoint.)
arereal.
ratherthan,say,
schooledinparticularsubstantivescienti
cdoctrines.
Thisisinkeepingwitharecurring(M-Naturalist)themeinhismature
work,namelythatwhatisimportantaboutscienceisscienti
naturalproduct
likeallotherorganicbeings
(1870:lxxviii);orsimilarly:
Manisaproductofnatureinbodyandmind.Hencenotmerelywhathe
is,butalsowhathedoes,wills,feels,andthinks,dependsuponthesame
naturalnecessityasthewholestructureoftheworld
(1870:239).
Wemaycalltherelevantpsycho-physicalfacts
type-facts.
Type-factsare
inthesensethatpersonscannotchoosethetype-factstheyhave;
theyarenotnecessarily
intermsoftheirrelativestrengthor
importanceatdifferentpointsinaperson
slife.Itistype-facts,inturn,
gureintheexplanationofhumanactionsandbeliefs(including
(BGE:6).Althoughhehereistalkingabout
greatphilosophers,
styleofexplanationofaperson
smoralbeliefsintermsofpsycho-physical
factsaboutthepersonisarecurringpatterninhiswork.
[M]oralities
merelyasignlanguageoftheaffects
hesays(BGE:187).
AcceptingtheGoldenRuleissigni
cantbecause
purportedlyseekcausalexplanationsforhumanactionsandbeliefs;butis
Truthandknowledge
themandforustohave
objective
abouttheintelligibilityoftheKantianideaofanoumenalworld,ofa
waythingsarein-themselvesquiteapartfromhowhumanbeingsrepresent
themtobe.
Butitisonlyinhislastsixworks,beginningwiththe
Itispreciselythisepistemologicalstory,accordingtoClark,that
AsClarknotes(1990:99
ostensiblestateofaffairstobeimpossible
(1995:85).This,ofcourse,
overstatesthepointinonerespect.Forexample,ifwesayitisimpossible
fortheretobelifeafterdeath,wedonotsayitbecausewecannot
ofsuchapossibility(surelywecan),butratherbecausesucha
possibilitycannotbereconciledwithascienti
cunderstandingofthe
humanmindandbody(itis
impossible,butconceptually
possible).Butthepointhasmoreforcewhendirectedagainstaclaimof
conceptualpossibility,liketheclaimthatthereexistsanoumenalworld,
aworld-in-itself.Forthepossibilityofsuchaworldismanifestly
establishedthroughempiricalevidence(howcoulditbe,sinceweknow
nothingaboutthenoumenalworld,otherthanthatit[allegedly]exists);
rather,suchaworldisaconceptualposit,anecessarylogicallinkinthe
Kantianidealistsystem.Butifaconceptualpositis,infact,incon-
possibilitythatcertainperspectivescanbesimply
abouttheobject,
thattheycan
distort
itstruenature.(Somemapsdonotportraytheregion
accuratelyinanyrespect.)Perspectivism,construedthus,emphasizesthat
knowledgeisalwaysinterested(andthuspartial)andthatdifferinginterests
willincreasethebreadthofknowledge,butitdoesnotimplythatknowledge
lacksobjectivityorthatthereisnotruthaboutthemattersknown.
Skepticismaboutscience
Nophilosophercanbeanaturalistwhothinksthattheclaimofthe
andbloomstotheend,iscertainlyoneofthemostpreciousinstruments
thereare
(BGE:207).Hiscomplaintaboutsciencehere,andelsewhere,
tthatitfailstoprovideobjectiveknowledgeofthetruth,butrather
thatitcannotentirelypreempt
Hostilitytowardsmaterialism
thatother
smaller-minded,meanermanner?
Sothatmoralityitselfweretoblameif
manneverattainedthe
highestpowerandsplendor
MächtigkeitundPracht
possibleforthetypeman?Sothatmoralityitselfwasthedangerof
Thisbasicworry
aboutthepossibilitiesforhumangreatness
allhiswritings,evensomeoftheearliest.Inthe1870s,hewasalready
speakingof
thegoalofculture
theproductionofgenius
(UIII:6),
thoughatthistimeheworriedlessabouttheeffectofmoralityongenius
thanabout
thecrudestandmostevilforces,theegoismofthemoney-
makersandthemilitarydespots
(UIII:4).Themajorworkoftheearly
ThusSpokeZarathustra
,beginswithZarathustra
simageofaworld
inwhichallhumanexcellenceandcreativityisgone,inwhichallthat
willremainisthe
lastman
Alas,thetimeofthemostdespicablemaniscoming,hethatisnolonger
abletodespisehimself.Behold,Ishowyouthe
lastman
Whatislove?Whatiscreation?Whatislonging?Whatisastar?
asksthelastman,andheblinks.
Theearthhasbecomesmall,andonithopsthelastman,whomakes
everythingsmall.
Wehaveinventedhappiness,
saythelastmen,andtheyblink.They
havelefttheregionswhereitwashardtolive,foroneneedswarmth.One
stilllovesone
sneighborandrubsagainsthim,foroneneedswarmth.
Noshepherdandoneherd!Everybodywantsthesame,everybodyisthe
same:whoeverfeelsdifferentgoesvoluntarilyintoamadhouse.
Formerly,alltheworldwasmad,
saythemostre
ned,andtheyblink.
Oneiscleverandknowseverythingthathaseverhappened:sothereisno
endtoderision.Onestillquarrels,butoneissoonreconciled
elseitmight
spoilthedigestion.
Wehaveinventedhappiness,
saythelastmen,andtheyblink.
(ZPref:5)
Inthelastman,weencounterpreciselythe
Notallvaluesare
2Intellectualhistoryandbackground
inthepresent.Dedicatedtohisfriend,theGermancomposerRichard
Wagner,thebookclearlyimpliesthatif
itisonlyasan
onlyWagner
smusicthatmightjustifytheworldofthepresent,aworld
toosuffusedwiththeSocraticrationalismagainstwhichthebook
sargu-
mentismainlydirected.Suchpolemicalaims,inaworkofscholarship,
didnotpleasehisacademicpeers.Fourteenyearslater,hehimselfcalled
thebook
badlywritten,ponderous,embarrassing,image-madand
image-confused,sentimental,inplacessaccharinetothepointofeffeminacy,
unevenintempo,withoutthewilltologicalcleanliness,veryconvinced
andthereforedisdainfulofproof
(BTAttempt:3).Thereviewsatthe
timewerenotmuchmorefavorable,
thoughsubsequentscholarshiphas
Turin(Italy)inearlyJanuary1889.Hespentthenextelevenyearsa
mentalandphysicalinvalid,underthecare,variously,ofprofessional
institutions,hismotherandthenhisproto-nationalistandanti-Semitic
tothinkthatallthesemaladiesandweaknessesareonprinciplenevertobe
curedbutonlypaintedover.
(UIII:6)
Inthesameessay,heattributesthesorrystateofGermancultureinthis
periodtothe
crudestandmostevilforces,theegoismofthemoney-
makersandthemilitarydespots
(UIII:4).Notice,ofcourse,thathis
objectiontocapitalismandmilitaristicnationalismisnot
inany
conventionalsenseofthatterm,
butalmosta
partofwhatmade
TheBirthofTragedy
embarrassmenttoclassicists
Yethishostilitytothe
aridity,
complacency,andinsularityofacademic
inphilosophy
are
thoseofthetwocenturies
before
Socrates
).Bycontrast,
heviews
theGreekphilosophersfromSocratesonward
asymptomof
decadence;theanti-Hellenicinstinctscometothetop
⠀WP:427).
Forthe
wholephenomenonPlatoIwouldsoonerusethephrase
higherswindle
(TIX:2),hesays.Writingadecadeearlier,heputsthepointasfollows:
WiththeGreeks,thingsgoforwardswiftly,butalsoasswiftlydownward;
themovementofthewholemechanismissointensi
edthatasinglestone,
thrownintoitswheels,makesitburst.SuchastonewasSocrates,for
example;inonenight,thedevelopmentofphilosophicalscience[
phischeWissenschaft
],untilthensowonderfullyregularbut,ofcourse,alltoo
swift,wasdestroyed.
(HAH:261)
samematerialsandthesamelawsarefoundineachsphere
(Kirk
ontheexistenceorpossibilityofknowledgeortruth;rather,itisan
theprototypeofthe
writersunderstoodalltoowell:thatknowledgeneednotbeapanacea,
thatthepursuitoftruthissimplyone
,avaluewhoserealization
maybeincompatiblewithothers.
ndit.Thepursuitofknowledgeinthe
justashis
generalpursuitofanaturalisticunderstandingofhumanbeings
isan
instrumentintheserviceofthisoverridingaimofformulatingacritique
Platonicslanderofthesenses
(WP:427);Plato,accordingto
certainnaturalfactsaboutthedigestivesystemofhumanbabies,itis
objectively(butrelationally⤀truethatcow
mind-independenceoftheworld,butratherinanoldersense,still
familiarfrompopularparlanceinphraseslike
Realismin
thissensereferstoacertainhard-headed,unromantic,uncompromising
attitude,whichmanifestsitselfinabrutalhonestyandcandorinthe
assessmentofhumanmotivesandtheportrayalofhumanaffairs
wemightcall
ClassicalRealism
(Leiter2001b),todistinguishitfrom
posterityforever,becauseweknowthatyouwoulddothesameifyouhad
ourpower,andsowouldanyoneelse.
(Woodruff1993:89,105)
wouldhavesaidthosethingsinpublicornot.
Heshowsustheirspee-
chesrefractedthroughalensofhonesty.
(Woodruff1993:xxiii)
Thucydides,ofcourse,isnotaloneamongtheSophistsinevincingthis
realisticviewoftheamoralmotivesoperativeinhumanaffairs.The
SophistGorgias,aswellasGlauconandThrasymachusinPlato
,arealsoClassicalRealists,inthesenseofsharingthesame
attitudeofhard-headedrealismorfact-facingwhichwithoutpassing
judgmentdeclaresthatthemorepowerfulwillalwaystakeadvantageof
theweaker,andwillgivethenameoflawandjusticetowhateverthey
laydownintheirowninterests
(Guthrie1971:60).TheseClassical
Realists,accordingtoGuthrie,allagreewithGlauconinthe
[s]elf-interest
iswhateverynature[
]naturallypursuesasgood
(1971:99).
AlthoughClassicalRealismisthehallmarkofSophisticculturefor
arbitrarily,likeagarment
ademandwhicheveryserious
philosophyhasrejectedwiththeproperscorn.
(PTAG:7)
Thiscrucialpointofrealistic(andfatalistic)insight
thatman
necessitydowntohislast
thatonecannot
changeone
essentia
WeshallseetheseCallicleanthemesregardingtheoriginofmorality
repeatedlyinevidenceinthe
ThenowwidespreadpedagogicalpracticeofteachingHegelandNietzsche
essentiallywillaswell,althoughhereSchopenhauer
snotionisless
opaque.Asonecommentatorwrites:
Thewillhasnooverallpurpose,aimsatnohighestgood,andcanneverbe
ed.Althoughitisouressence,itstrikesusasanalienagencywithin,
strivingforlifeandprocreationblindly,mediatedonlysecondarilyby
consciousness.Instinctivesexualityisatourcore,interferingconstantlywith
thelifeoftheintellect.Tobeanindividualexpressionofthiswillistolead
alifeofcontinualdesire,de
ciency,andsuffering.Pleasureorsatisfaction
existsonlyrelativetoafeltlack;itisnegative,merelythecessationof
anepisodeofstrivingorsuffering,andhasnovalueofitself.Nothingwe
canachievebyconsciousactofwillaltersthewilltolifewithinus.Thereis
thatallhumanactionsare
butrathertheinteractionofmotiveandunalterablecharacteroperating
undertheprincipleofsuf
cientreason(i.e.,thelawofcauseandeffect).
Daybreak
,forexample,heappearstorepudiateSchopenhauer
sviewof
character.Forexample,hewrites:
Onecandisposeofone
sdriveslikeagardenerand,thoughfewknowit,
cultivatetheshootsofanger,pity,curiosity,vanityasproductivelyand
tablyasabeautifulfruittreeonatrellis.
Allthisweareatlibertytodo:buthowmanyknowweareatliberty
todoit?Dothemajoritynot
whichconstitutethe
character.
AsSchopenhauerwriteslateron,the
will
islike
thestrongblindmancarryingthesightedlameman[i.e.,the
intellect]onhisback
(1844:209).Thissuggests,though,thatthereis
workfortheintellecttodoinguidingthecharacter
preciselywhatwe
candowhenwe
characterinSchopenhauer
ssense.Sothe
passagesin
Daybreak
arenotarepudiationofSchopenhauer
sview,buta
reiterationofit.
Butdoesthismodi
cationoftheviewrefutethefatalism?Infact,it
doesnot(thoughSchopenhauer,atleast,isunclearonthisissue).We
allowustodoubtthatman,withallhehasandpossesses,beitmentalor
corporeal,isa
naturalproduct
likeallotherorganicbeings
(p.lxxviii).
Manisaproductofnature,
declaredBüchner,
inbodyandmind.
Hencenotmerelywhatheis,butalsowhathedoes,wills,feels,and
thinks,dependsuponthesamenaturalnecessityasthewholestructure
oftheworld
(p.239).Sospokethe
GermanMaterialists
ofthe1850s
andafter.
GermanMaterialismhaditsoriginsinLudwigFeuerbach
sworksof
thelate1830sandearly1840s,butitreallyexplodedontothecultural
recentlypublished
HistoryofMaterialism
,abookwhichopenedupforhim
thewholehistoryofphilosophicalmaterialismuptoandincluding
GermanMaterialism,aswellasintroducinghimtotheprofounddevel-
opmentsinmodernnaturalscience,especiallychemistryandphysiology.
cantphilosophicalworktohaveappeared
inrecentdecades
everywhereintheright
philosophy,butrathertotheideathatsciencecoulddispensewiththe
roleof
genuinephilosophers
ascreatorsofvalues(cf.BGE:211;Chap-
ter1).Ashesayselsewhere,itis
Aroundtheinventorsofnewvalues
[that]theworldrevolves,
and
(ZI:12;Z
allthis
(TIVI:3).Onecansurelyrecognize,too,the(anachronistically)
mistakemadebyawholepeopleoveralongperiodoftimethatare
comingtolight
(GS:134);orarguingthat:
Whateverproceedsfromthestomach,theintestines,thebeatingoftheheart,
thenerves,thebile,thesemen
allthosedistempers,debilitations,excitations,
thewholechanceoperationofthemachineofwhichwestillknowso
hadtobeseenbyaChristiansuchasPascalasamoralandreligious
phenomenon,andhehadtoaskwhetherGodorDevil,goodorevil,salvation
ordamnationwastobediscoveredinthem!Ohwhatanunhappyinterpreter.
(D:86)
Hereiteratesthepointseveralyearslaterinthe
epistemologicalpostureheadmiredinmanyofthePresocraticsand
Sophists,andwhichwasalsopresentintheMaterialists.
Fourth,atendencytolookatmatters
realistically
,inthemannerofthe
ClassicalRealismoftheSophistsandPresocratics,thinkerswhocandidly
andun
inchinglyassessedhumanmotivesandactions,andwhoappre-
ciatedtheextenttowhichself-interest
guredinhumanaffairs,even
(importantly)inthetypesof
moralities
peoplepreachedandadopted.
Fifth,anacceptanceofanessentially
conceptionofhuman
shouldwecallthatwhichinformsit
[T]hereisnodoubt
thata
thoushalt
dusollst
]speakstoustoo
(4).Thismeans,ofcourse,
fromtheresentmentandhatredfeltbycertaintypesofpeople⠀
weak,
ofitscommitmenttotheuniversalapplicabilityofonemoralcode;and
thePresuppositionsApproach,intermsofits(untenable)empiricaland
thepossibletrajectories,thoughtheythemselvesdonotuniquely
OneBecomesWhatOneIs
Wiemanwird,wasmanist
14Seepp.46
50,inChapter2.
grounds.Forexample,commentingonthefamoussection
OntheDespisersoftheBody
(ZI:4),
CritiqueofmoralityI:moralagency
self-congratulationinvolvedinsimplyreportingwhathadtobe,and
Wenowhavetheanswertothebook
ssubtitle:howone
becomeswhatoneis.Theanswer:bymakingnospecialeffort
towardthatend
,becauseonebecomeswhatoneis
anyevent,thisishowweshallthinkoftheissue,evenifthisdoesnotdo
justicetothefullrangeofpossiblephilosophicalcomplications.
actions.Our
isanartifactofthefactsaboutus,andthuscannot
bethesourceofgenuinelyfreeaction(thesortthatwouldground
responsibility).
Noticethattheproblemisnotresolvedbysuggestingthat,evenifour
xedbynaturalfactsaboutus,wemay,lateron,
strivetoalterthisbasiccharacterthroughthechoiceswemake
example,bychoosingtoundergopsychoanalysis,orto
turnoveranew
Forthismovesimplypushestherequirementofa
causasui
backone
morelevel,yieldinganin
niteregress.AsGalenStrawsonhashelpfully
putthepoint:
Wemaylaterengageinconsciousandintentionalshapingprocedures
themS-procedures
designedtoaffectandchangeourcharacters,motiva-
tionalstructure,andwills.
Thequestionisthenwhyweengageinthe
particularS-proceduresthatwaywedoengagein,andwhyweengagein
themintheparticularwaywedo.Thegeneralansweristhatweengage
intheparticularS-proceduresthatwedoengagein,giventhecircum-
stancesinwhichwe
ndourselves,becauseofcertainfeaturesofthewaywe
alreadyare.
(1994:18)
If,inotherwords,wearenot
causasui
,theneverythingaboutourwill
alongtimebeencentraltotheWesternreligious,moralandcultural
(1994:8).
Arguably,itisonlycertainacademicphiloso-
pherswhothinktheneedtobeaself-causedagentissuper
ConsciousnessisKind-Epiphenomenalinthesensethatconsciousstates
arecausallyeffectivebutinvirtueofnonconsciouspropertiesortype-facts
notsimplyinvirtueoftheirbeingconsciousstates.Putmoresimply:
consciousnessisnotcausallyef
caciousinitsownright.Whileaperson
consciousstatesmaybepartofthecausalchainleadinguptoaction,they
playthatroleonlyinvirtueofnon-consciousfactsabouttheperson.
alongsidethedeedthatismorelikelytocoveruptheantecedentsofthe
deedsthantorepresentthem.
Whatfollowsfromthis?Therearenomental[
]causesatall.
(TIVI:3)
generallyunknowntous.Butaslongastheyremainunknown,thenwe
couldnotpossibly
identify
withthem(assumingasatisfactoryaccount
ofidenti
cationwereevenforthcoming),andthuscouldnot,asthe
hierarchicalaccountswouldhaveusdo,
identify
withthe
real
humanbeingswhoarenew,unique,incomparable,whogivethemselves
laws,whocreatethemselves
(GS:335)
(1985:174).Nehamas,however,
hastruncatedthequotefrom
TheGayScience.
(hence,inwhowebecome);hencethecreationofvaluesiscausally
connectedtothecreationofourselves.
possibility,asmuchastheydoagainsttheideaofcreatingone
slife
directly(withoutthemediationofvalues).
caseisthatinthisentireprocedureourintellectisonlytheblindinstrumentof
anotherdrive
,whichisa
rival
ofthedrivewhosevehemenceistormentingus.
While
believewearecomplainingaboutthevehemenceofadrive,at
bottomitisonedrive
whichiscomplainingabouttheother
;thatistosay:forusto
becomeawarethatwearesufferingfromthe
ofadrivepresupposes
theexistenceofanotherequallyvehementorevenmorevehementdrive,and
thata
struggle
isinprospectinwhichourintellectisgoingtohavetotakesides.
(D:109)
Eveniftheintellectmust
takesides
Parteinehmen
⤀thisplainlydoes
judgmentrequiresthatwebeabletoknow
motivesarethecauseof
consequenceswillbemorefavorablethanthoseofanyother.
[W]ewould
possessinour
pictureoftheconsequences
ofacertainactiona
performingthisaction.
Butatthemomentwhenwe
nallydoact,our
younggrowths.Manure,forinstance,isgoodforallplantswhenappliedto
theirroots,bututterlydestructiveifputontheshootsoryoungbranches.
Ortakeoliveoil.Itisverybadforplants,andmostinimicaltothehairof
allanimalsexceptman,whereasmen
nditofservicebothtothehairand
totherestofthebody.Sodiverseandmultiformisgoodnessthatevenwith
usthesamethingisgoodwhenappliedexternallybutdeadlywhentaken
InbothHeraclitusandProtagoras,weseethenotionofrelationalgood-
nessatwork:whatisgoodfor
sh,maybebadformen;andwhatisgood
formen,maybebadforallotheranimals.Thisamountspreciselytoa
denialofwhatRailtonalsodenies:
absolute
goodness.AsW.K.C.Guthrie
explains,onesenseofthe
ofvaluefoundintheSophistsisthe
viewthat:
goods,thingsthataregoodforsomeparticular
ofcreature,butnot
forallcreatures.
Butwhat,ifanything,accountsforthe
ofrelationalgood-
HereconsiderationofRailton
sviewwillproveparticularlyuseful.
Ifthereisareal,objectivefactaboutwhatisnon-morallyorprudentially
goodforaperson,thenitmust,accordingtoRailton,havetwofeatures:
interestofapersonwhenhis
selfwouldwanthisnon-idealselfto
wantorseekit.
Aperson
sidealselfisjustaselfwith
cognitiveandimaginativepowers,andfullfactualandnomological
informationabouthisphysicalandpsychologicalconstitution,capacities,
circumstances,history,andsoon
(1986b:174
75).Railtonoffersthe
Andthuswehaveacontemporarymoralphilosopher
saccountof
non-moralgoodnessasconsistingin
what[aperson]wouldwanthimself
toseekifheknewwhatheweredoing
(1986b:177).
andevilandtheirtremendousascendancyoverbodyandsoulhave
weakenedallbodiesandsoulsandsnappedtheself-reliant,independent,
unprejudicedmen,thepillarsofa
(D:163).Similarly,
inaposthumouslypublishednoteof1885,heremarksthat
menofgreat
creativity,thereallygreatmenaccordingtomyunderstanding,willbe
soughtinvaintoday
nothingstandsmoremalignantlyinthe
wayoftheirriseandevolution
thanwhatinEuropetodayiscalled
(WP:957).Intheseandmanyotherpassages,
highermen
standingaloneandhavingtoliveindependently[
auf-eigne-Faust-leben-
(BGE:212).Indeed,thehighertypepursuessolitudewith
Consideredinthisway,mylifeissimplywonderful.Forthetaskofa
revaluationofallvalues
morecapacitiesmayhavebeenneededthanhaveever
ofthemosthigh-spirited,alive,andworld-af
rminghumanbeingwho
fundamentalcertainty
fundamentalcertainty
aboutone
sentiments.
conditionsinwhichfullytoreleasehispowerandachievehismaximum
feelingofpower
(GMIII:7).Asappliedtomorality,itleadsnaturallyto
claimslikethefollowing:
[I]nthehistoryofmoralityawilltopower
ndsexpression,throughwhich
nowtheslavesandoppressed,nowtheill-constitutedandthosewhosuffer
fromthemselves,nowthemediocreattempttomakethosevaluejudgments
prevailthatarefavorableto
(WP:400)
weshallsee,
anti-nature
mustbeconstruedasre
ectinghis
concernforthepreservationandcultivationof
highermen.
forlifearethosehetakestobenecessaryforthe
ourishingofthehighest
typesoflife(orhumanexcellence),whilethosethatheidenti
esas
harmfultoitarethosethathetakestobethingsthatconstituteobstacles
tosuch
ourishing.Thissuggests,then,thatthe
forwhichthings
areeithervaluableordisvaluablemustbethelife(orlives)thatmanifest
humanexcellence
i.e.,thelivesof
highermen.
Heheresimplyechoedfamousclaimsfromtheoriginalworkmorethana
dozenyearsearlier:
itisonlyasan
existenceandtheworld
CritiqueofmoralityII:moralnorms
seemjusti
importantfeaturesoflargerandmorecomplexnormativeviews.Nietzsche
himselfremarksthatwhilethereis
avastrealmofsubtlefeelingsof
CritiqueofmoralityII:moralnorms
turntothe
makesus
better
;butIknowthatitmakesusmoreprofound
(GSPref:3).
(EHI:1)
insteadwastetheirenergiespursuingpleasure,lamentingtheirsuffering
andseekingtoalleviateit.Moralvaluesmaynotexplicitlyprohibitartists
orotherpotentially
personsfromeversuffering;buttheriskis
thataculture
likeours
whichhasinternalizedthenorms
against
suffering
pleasurewillbeacultureinwhichpotentialartists
andother
doersofgreatthings
infact
,squanderthemselvesinself-pityand
theseekingofpleasure.
thecenterofgravity,resistancetothenaturalinstincts
inoneword,
thatiswhatwashithertocalled
(EHIII:D-2).
HisviewonthevalueofthisparticularPro-ObjectofMPSwasalso
unequivocal;asheputsitinanearlywork:
hasnovalue
eitherinheavenoronearth.Allgreatproblemsdemand
greatlove
(GS:345).
Inasimilarvein,hewritesthat
amoralityin
whichself-interestwiltsaway
remainsabadsignunderallcircum-
Thebestislackingwhenself-interestbeginstobelacking
preciselythen.
(BGE:188)
Nowinsofaras
virtue,art,music,dance,reason,spirituality
allthings
forwhosesakeitisworthwhiletoliveonearth
(BGE:188)
require
thattheircreatorsconcentrateonthemtotheexclusionofallother
concernsandinterests(includingthoseofotherpersons),thenitiseasyto
16Kaufmann
seewhysevereself-love
thesortofsingle-mindedfocuscharacteristicof
thedisciplinedartistatwork
maypossessconsiderableextrinsicvaluein
(e.g.,thepreservationoftheherd)?Thesekindsofquestionsare,broadly
Ofcourse,Clarkcouldberightaboutthestrongestformofthedoctrine
(encompassinganimate
inanimatenature),butwrongabouttheonly
formatissuehere:namelythatall
organic
phenomenaarewilltopower.
Butifallactionsmanifestedthis
,thenthis
couldneverbe
statusofthis
individualoreachcommunity.Foot(1973⤀appearstoendorsesucha
thereisanyobjectivevindicationforhisevaluativeposition.(This,
infact,isthemostfamiliarreading
thesecondaryliteratureon
Thesuggestionhereisthatweareguiltyofaprojectiveerror:just
as,previously,weprojectedgenderontothesun,wenowproject
theyatthesametimekeepaway,createadistance,forbid
understanding,assaidabove
whiletheyopentheearsofthosewhoseears
arerelatedtoours.
(GS:381)
CritiqueofmoralityII:moralnorms
high,andtheloware
low.Butthisseeminglyobjectivejudgment
thatHitlerwouldhavebeen
(GS:381),one
predisposedandpredestined
idealisfabricatedfromthecontradictionagainsttheproudandwell-turned
outhumanbeingwhosaysYes,whoissureofthefuture,whoguarantees
thefuture
andheisnowcalled
Andallthiswasbelieved,
Ecrasezl
(EHIV:8)
force:hemustshakehighertypesoutoftheirintuitivecommitmentto
whilethebasic
formulaonwhicheveryreligionandmoralityisfounded
Dothisandthat,refrainfromthatandthat
thenyouwillbehappy!
explanatory
oftype-factsaboutagents,heisonlyrulingoutcausal
cacythatisnotultimatelytraceabletocausalef
cacyinvirtueoftype-
senseofsmellforthesignsofascentanddeclinethananyotherhuman
beingbeforeme
Iknowboth,Iamboth
(EHI:1);adding,
IsayafterallthisthatinquestionsofdecadenceIam
experienced
(EHI:1).
themselves(towardhealthordecadence).Asonecommentatorputsit,
Ifuntruthcanbeaconditionoflife
if,inotherwords,weoughtto
believeerrorsandfalsehoodswhentheyarenecessaryforour
thenthefactthatmoraljudgmentspresupposefalsehoodsdoesnot
thenewepistemicnormthatgrowsoutofhisrecognitionofthenecessity
oferror.
normativeviews
thatispreciselypartofthepointofthepreceding
5Whatis
andwhatis
Muchofthe
sfamerestsonitsperceivedintroductionofanew
historysoundslikeitisclaiminganepistemicprivilegeforitsclaims
muchliketraditionalhistory!
Whatare
andthe
distinguishedorigin:thevalueofthedistinguishedancestoris,asitwere,
transmittedtothepresent-daydescendants(Geuss1994:275).(Those
withdisreputableforebearsaretypicallylessinterestedinadvertising
theirowngenealogy,preciselybecausetheysharetheassumptionthatthe
valueatthepointoftheoriginistransmittedtothoselateroninthe
genealogicaltree.)
posture.Hedescribesthe
oftheFirstEssayas
thebirthof
Christianityoutofthespiritof
ressentiment
,not,aspeople,maybelieve
outofthe
(EHIII:GM).Thatis,theoriginofChristianity(more
precisely,themoralityassociatedwithChristianity[seeChapter6])is
explicableintermsofacertainkindofpsychologicalmechanismfoundin
creatureslikeus
ressentiment
notintermsofsomesupernatural
spiritualinspirationorsource.So,too,the
psychologyofthe
profferedintheSecondEssaylocatestheoriginofconscience
voiceofGodinman
butratherastheresultofthecon
cf.GMI:Note).
Thusinthehistoryofmoralityawilltopower
ndsexpression,through
whichnowtheslavesandoppressed,nowtheill-constitutedandthosewho
sufferfromthemselves,nowthemediocreattempttomakethosevalue
judgmentsprevailthatarefavorableto
(WP:400;cf.BGE:187;ZI:15;WP:134,254,258,675)
Ifthisisright,thenitfollowsthatinsightintotheoriginofMPSgives
usinsightintothe
causalpowers
ofMPS:byunderstandingtheorigin,we
understandtheeffectsofadoptingaparticularmorality.Butaswesawin
elsewhereinhiscorpusproceedwithoutanyrecoursetogenealogical
claims.⤀Indeed,itbearsemphasizingthatonlythegenealogyinconjunction
withthethesisthatthecausalpowersoftheobjectarestableovertime
claimsmuchmoreontheirbehalf.Heprofessestobeofferinga
historyofmorality
onethatfocusesonlyon
thatwhichcanbedocumented,
whichcanactuallybecon
rmedandhasactuallyexisted
(GMPref:7).
Evenwhendescribingthe
EcceHomo
twoyearslater,he
speaksofthe
thateachessayreveals,notingthatineachessay
truth[
]becomesvisibleeverytime
APolemic,
andhisgoal,aswehave
seenaboveandinChapters3and4,istocritiqueMPS,inparticular,in
ordertofreenascenthigherhumanbeingsfromtheirfalseconsciousness
aboutMPS.Tothatend,thetoneandtrappingsofascholarlytreatise
wouldsimplybeanimpediment.Theburdenofthe
istoforce
peopletothinktheunthinkable,toquestionthevalueofMPS,atask
madeallthemoredif
cultbythefactthat
theslaverevoltinmorality
hasatwothousand-yearhistorybehinditandwhichhasonlymovedout
ofoursighttodaybecauseit
hasbeenvictorious
(GMI:7).Thus,
whilethe
purportstomake
claimsaboutthe
originsofMPS,itismanifestlynotaconventional
ectinga
forcold,pure,inconsequential
(UIII:6).Itsaimis
toknowthetruthaboutMPS
soriginsforthe
sakeofknowingthattruth;rather,itisanimatedbythesameprofound
Whilenotallhisclaimsadmitofsimple
rmation
inthisway,
Asitsverytitlesuggests,
Human,AllTooHuman
seeksto
explainthe
art,religion,andmorality
whichareoften
good,butwhyitisthathumananimalsaccept
morality.Wherewe
mustbecautiousis
perhapssurprisingly
withrespecttoClark
TwilightoftheIdols
,hedescribesthe
byMPSas
acaricatureofman,likeamiscarriage:hehadbecomea
hewas
stuckinacage,
imprisonedamongallsortsofterribleconcepts
schrecklicheBegriffe].Andtherehelay,sick,miserable,malevolentagainsthimself:full
ofhatredagainstthespringsoflife,fullofsuspicionagainstallthatwasstill
strongandhappy.
(TIVII:2,emphasisadded)
Ineachcase,weseethatthethrustoftheworryisthathighertypeswill
cometoevaluateandthinkofthemselvesintermsofthe
toMPS(andChristianity⤀
thattheywillbecome
imprisonedamongall
sortsofterribleconcepts
withtheresultthattheywillbecastinto
self-doubtandadestructiveself-loathing,andthusneverrealizethe
excellencesofwhichtheyarecapable.
HisgeneralpointisperhapsmoststrikinglyputinaveryCalliclean
passagefrom
BeyondGoodandEvil
Thehighestandstrongestdrives,whentheybreakoutpassionatelyand
drivetheindividualfarabovetheaverageandthe
atsoftheherdcon-
science,wrecktheself-con
denceofthecommunity.
Hencejustthese
drivesarebrandedandslanderedmost.Highandindependentspirituality,
thewilltostandalone,evenapowerfulreasonareexperiencedasdangers;
everythingthatelevatesanindividualabovetheherdandintimidatesthe
neighborishenceforthcalled
evil
;andthefair,modest,conformingmentality,
ofdesiresattainsmoraldesignationsandhonors.
(BGE:201)
Highandindependentspirituality,
thewilltostandalone
:these
discontented,arrogantandnastycreatureswhoharbouredadeepdisgustfor
themselves,fortheworld,foralllifeandhurtthemselvesasmuchaspossible
outofpleasureinhurting:
probablytheironlypleasure.
(GMIII:11)
Itisthecentralpuzzleofthe
toexplainhowsuchastateof
affairscametopass,howitisthatChristianity,Judaism,Buddhism,Islam,
Hinduism,and,mostimportantly,theirdistinctivelyasceticmoralities,
cametohavesuchaprofoundholduponthehumanmind.
Howitcametopassispreciselywhatthethreeessaysofthe
tellus.Theoriginofthenowpredominant
Essay,asweshallsee,isthatitdoesnotfullyanswerthequestionofhow
badconsciencebecame
moralized
nitionofmorality
:Morality
theidiosyncrasyofdecadents,withthe
ulteriormotiveofrevengingoneselfagainstlife.
(EHIV:7)
6AcommentaryontheFirstEssay
Thetruthofthe
inquiryisthebirthofChristianity:thebirthofChristianityout
ofthespiritof
,not,aspeoplemaybelieve,outofthe
acoun-
termovementbyitsverynature,thegreatrebellionagainstthedominionof
(EHIII:GM)
whichrevolvesaroundtheaxesofevaluating
persons.Drivingthiscreationforwardisadistinctivepsychologicalstate
reallyinterestedatallintheoriginofthereligiouscosmology,institutions,
andritualsdistinctiveofChristianity;indeed,heisnoteveninterestedin
Christianity
,perse,asshouldbeapparentfromthewayheusesJudaism
itself,today,asthoughtotheembodimentofthehighestvalues
andnot
justinRome,butovernearlyhalftheearth?
(GMI:16)
Inotherwords,theproofofthetriumphof
isthatthe
Catholic
(thoughheplainlyrejectsallthattoo),butthe
theypromulgate,
themodeofevaluationforwhichtheystand.
OurfailuretorecognizethepeculiarfactsabouttheoriginofJudeo-
HistoryofEuropeanMorals
(1869),aworkwhichdiscussesauthorssuchas
theScotsmanHumeandtheEnglishphilosophersHutcheson,Bentham,
andMill,amongothers,allofwhomwereconcernedinvariousways
andpsychology,andthusitisimplausiblewecouldhaveforgottensucha
self-interestedoriginofourvaluationofaltruism.
aristocratic
inasocial[orclass]senseisthebasicconceptfromwhich,
developed
(GMI:4).
Andheremarksthat
conceptofpoliticalsuperiorityalwaysresolvesitselfintotheconceptof
psychologicalsuperiority,
whichisthenexpressedbythevariousmoral
concepts(GMI:6);itisonlythe
democraticbias
(GMI:4)ofthe
modernagethathasobscuredthispoint.Finally,inrecounting
Thebeginningoftheslaves
revoltinmorality,
This,then,istheslaverevoltinmorals:slaves,unabletotakedirect
physicalactionagainstthesourcesoftheirmisery(theirmasters,their
oppressors),aredrivenbytheirstewinghatredoftheirmasterstodothe
onlythingtheycando,createnewvalues,valuesthat
themasters,
thatinvertthemasters
valuations:theirvaluationsare,ineffect,
ofthesepowerfulreactiveemotions.
Itisimportantheretorememberthat
ressentiment
drawsontheresourcesof
morefamiliaremotionssuchashatredandvengefulness.Menof
ressentiment
(GMIII:14).
Theconceptof
(acreationofthemanof
⤀comesfrom
thecauldronofunassuagedhatred
(GMI:11).Hismoststrikingactual
exampleofamanof
,theChurchFatherTertullian,isoffered
asanexampleofthe
Essay,theroleof
ressentiment
isnotentirelynegative.
,bymeansofwhichthenobleracesandtheiridealswere
wreckedandoverpowered,astheactual
instrumentsofculture
;which,however,
isnottosaythatthe
bearers
oftheseinstinctswerethemselvesrepresentatives
oftheculture.
(GMI:11)
noblesormasters
Roman,Arabian,Germanic,Japanese
nobility,Homericheroes,ScandinavianVikings
(GMI:11)
arenot
barbaricnobles,
andtheslaverevoltbringaboutsocialand
materialconditionsinwhichcertainkindsofculturalexpressioncan
ourish.
Inthatsense,
ressentiment
provesitselfan
instrumentofculture,
themenof
arenotthemselves
guresofculturalgreatness.
Todojusticetothe
discussioninthe
Genealogy
,itwillbeuseful
tointroducetwomore-re
beyondgoodandevil
tomarkthisidea.Consider,for
example,Nehamas
treatmentoftheissue.Onexamination,itturnsoutthatnoneofthethreepassages
Nehamascitesinsupportofthe
essentialunity
readingevenmentionthedistinctiveslogan
goodandevil.
ofaspectsofthe
orderinwhichtheelementsoftherespective
distinctionsarose;andintermsofthe
thatexplainthegenesisof
thedistinctions.First,forGBM,theterm
⤀isinvented
asaspontaneouscelebrationof
theexaltedproudstatesofthesoul
(BGE:260),whiletheterm
bad
schlecht
⤀isanafterthoughtanddesignates
allthosewhoarenot
ForGEM,bycontrast,theterm
⤀comes
(todesignate
preciselythe
goodman
oftheother
[GM1:11]),whiletheterm
⤀comessecondand
simplydesignatesallthosewhoarenot
theEvilOne
slave退s]basicconcept,fromwhichhethenevolves,asanafterthoughtand
pendant,a
goodone
[GM1:10]).
Second,GBMandGEMhavedifferentmotives.ForGBM,themotive
isself-af
rmationandcelebrationofthe
exalted,proudstatesofthe
Second,theevaluativejudgmentsofGBMattachsubstantivevalueto
theexalted,proudstatesofthesoul
sothat
theoppositionof
good
meansapproximatelythesameas
(BGE:260).Bycontrast,inGEM,substantivevalueattachesto
whichservetoeasetheexistenceforthosewhosuffer
patience,industry,humilityandfriendlinessarehonored
(BGE:260)withthe
nalresultthat
atouchofdisdainisassociated
withthe
ofthismorality
thegoodhumanbeing[theonewho
good-natured,easytodeceive,alittlestupid
perhaps,
unbonhomme
⠀BGE:260).Conversely,GEMwithholdssubstantive
valuefromeverythingthat
inspire[s]fear
(BGE:260),fromallthatis
powerfulandnoble
(GM1:7).Asonecommentatoraptlyputsit:
Whentheeyeof
looksatthenobles,itdoesnotseethetightly
woundskeinofpower,wealth,courage,truthfulnessandthelikethatthe
noblesthemselveshadperceived;itseesinsteadonlycruelty,tyranny,lustful-
ness,insatiability,andgodlessness(GMI:7).Oncethe
ofthe
weakhasbecomecreativeandgivenbirthtoanewkindofmorality,the
slavesareablewhentheylookatthemselvesnolongertoseeunrelenting,
mightattach.Thus,GBMlooksatpersons,andviewsactionsasexpressive
ofpersons,whileGEM,becauseofitsdistinctiveconceptionofpersonsas
freeagents,looks
rstat(whatittakestobefree)actions.
Second,thenormativejudgmentsofGBMassesstheperson(broadly
speaking⤀intermsofhis
nobility
(orlackthereof),andthejudgment
Goodandbad(GBM)
Goodandevil(GEM)
intermsofwhatsortof
oneis,asopposedtowhatsortofactions
oneperforms.Nowthis,infact,iswhatone
withthis
rstvaluation.Thus,anyassessmentoftheselfbytheslave,
rst,mustbe
viaanexaminationofwhatisexternal
totheselfand,second,isnever
certain
foritalwaysdependsonwhatthe
externalstimulihappentobe.Theslave,then,cannotreverehimself,
thoughhe
cometothinkhimself
inthesensecharacteristic
ofGEM.Onlythenobleperson,inwhomvalues
growspontaneously
(GM1:10),forwhommoralityis
(BGE:260),is
capableofgenuinereverenceforself.
Theseremarksaboutthede
ningcriteriaofnobilityshouldnotsuggest,
ofcourse,thatthe
mandoesnotalsoactincertaindistinctive
Thepoint,however,isthatthelocusofevaluation
thething
whichdistinguishesthe
manfromthe
contemptible
certainaspectsofhis
Thetriumphofslavemorality
Slavemoralityis
(GMI:7),thoughnotabsolutely:
thereis
stillnolackofplaceswherethebattle
aftertasteofluxuryandre
nementaboutit:
preciselybecauseinthisarea,
andnottoworryaboutone
demands?
Apartial(butonlypartial)answerissuggestedbysections6and7of
thoughIpartcompanyoncertainissues.
CommentaryontheFirstEssay
ofslavesbeprofferedasasatisfyingexplanationofamomen-
touseventlike
thebirthofChristianity
(EHIII:GM)?Isapsycholo-
gicalexplanationreallyenoughtoaccountforatransformationinhuman
cultureofthismagnitude?
Ofcourse,wemustrememberthatthe
isapolemic,whose
ultimateaimistofreenascenthigherhumanbeingsfromtheirfalsecon-
7AcommentaryontheSecondEssay
The
second
inquiryoffersthepsychologyofthe
conscience
whichisnot,aspeoplemay
believe,
thevoiceofGodinman
:itistheinstinctofcrueltythatturnsbackafterit
cannolongerdischargeitselfexternally.Crueltyishereexposedforthe
rsttimeasone
ofthemostancientandbasicsubstrataofculturethatsimplycannotbeimaginedaway.
(EHIII:GM)
Ressentiment
,aswesawinthelastchapter,wasthefundamentalpsychological
mechanismunderlyingtheslaverevoltinmorals,butthisrevoltitself
placeagainstthebackdropofanotherprofoundchangeinthehumanpsyche:
thedevelopmentof
conscience
Gewissen
⤀and,inparticular,
bad
conscience.As
fromFreud
s.WhileFreudworriesaboutthestabilityofcivilization
loathing,andacapacityforself-
how,inotherwords,an
awarenessorconsciousnessofone
sprioractsanddebtsbecameacapacity
foraparticularkindof
bad
schlecht
)conscience,namelya
guilty
conscience.
ThecoreargumentoftheSecondEssayoccursinthreeparts.First,
thereisanexplanationofhowanimalslikeusacquiredaconscience,inthe
senseofanabilitytorememberourdebts,thatexpandsuponearlierdis-
cussions(especiallyfrom
Thequestionisthenframedashowthedebtor
creditorrelationship
,suchthatonewasnotsimplyconsciousofadebt,but
aboutowingit(GMII:4
8).Anactualanswertothisquestion
doesnotbegintoappear,however,untilthethirdpartoftheargument
(GMII:16
18),whichintroducesthebasicthesisaboutbadconscience
astheproductoftheinternalizationofcruelty.Itturnsout,however,that
conscienceastheproductofthe
internalizationofcruelty⠀
badconscience
estwopreconditionsforpromise-making:
ofbehavior
andacapacityfor
memory
.Regularityisnecessarybecauseapromise-
makermustbe
answerableforhisown
(GMII:1),sinceone
cannotbeanswerableforafuturethatisutterlyunpredictable.Memoryis
essentialfortheobviousreasonthatonlysomeonewhocan
promisecanpossiblyhonorit.
i.e.,hisbehaviorissuf
cientlyregularandpredictablesothathecanbe
answerableforhisownfuture
(GMII:1),andheisabletoremember
whathehaspromisedandhonorthatmemory.Butweknowalreadyfrom
theopeninglinesoftheSecondEssaythatthisjustmeansheisacertain
kindof
thathasbeenbredtherightwayandnothingmore.
Badconscience:debtandguilt(4
acapacitytorememberone
spromises
arisesfromthe
(GMII:4).What,then,distinguishesasenseofdebt(which,presumably,only
requiresaconscience,i.e.,amemoryofthedebt)fromasenseofguilt?This
questionwillnotactuallybeanswereduntillaterintheSecondEssay,though
rstsuggestionsarebroachedinthesectionsunderconsiderationhere.
Weseea
rstdistinctionbetween
whenwenotice
howthepunishmentofdebtorswasconceptualizedpriortothemoralization
didnotdependon
anyassumptionaboutfreedomorlackoffreedomofthewill
(GMII:4).
Beingindebt,unlikebeingguilty,doesnotinvolvebeing
,inthesenseofbeinganagentwhoispresumedtohavethe
capacityforautonomousorfreechoice.
This,inanycase,isthe
distinguishingfeatureofguilt,ofthemoralizationofthesenseof
indebtedness:debtcanbecomemoralizedwhenthedebtorisviewedasa
freeand
morallyresponsible
agent.Weshallexaminesomeoftheother
distinctivefeaturesof
ThesectionsthatfollowimmediatelyintheSecondEssay(5
11)are
largelytakenupwithexplorationofthenon-moralizeddebtor/creditor
relationship,anditsvariousmanifestations.Thereis,ofcourse,thepara-
digmaticcaseofindividualexchange(GMII:5
6),butthenthereisalso
thecaseofthecommunityanditsmemberswiththosewhoviolate
communalnormsbeinginthesituationofdebtors(GMII:9
11).Most
strikingly,though,GMII:5
7emphasizes,atrathergreatlength,the
roleofthein
ictionofpainintheearliestformsofdebtor
ictionofpainonthedebtor]is
providedbythefactthatinsteadofanadvantagedirectlymakingupforthe
wrong[tothecreditor](so,insteadofcompensationinmoney,landorpos-
sessionsofanykind),asortof
isgiventothecreditorasrepayment
andcompensation,
thepleasureofhavingtherighttoexercisepowerover
thepowerlesswithoutathought
theenjoymentofviolating.
[C]ompensationismadeupofawarrantandentitlementtocruelty.
(GMII:5)
Butsuchcompensationwouldnotbesatisfyingexceptforthefactthat,
Toseesomebodysufferisnice,tomakesomebodysufferevennicer
thatis
ahardproposition,butanancient,powerful,human-all-too-human
(GMII:6).
Theinstinctforcrueltyis,inotherwords,a
fundamentalhumaninstinct,onewhosesatisfactioncouldeasilycom-
pensateacreditorfordebtsowed.Thecentralityofthisinstincttohuman
lifemeansthat
whenmankindfeltnoshametowardsitscruelty,lifeon
earthwasmorecheerfulthanitistoday
nowthat
theanimal
nallytaughttobeashamedofallhisinstincts
(GMII:7).
staatliche]organizationsprotectedthemselves
hadtheresultsthatall
thoseinstinctsofthewild,free,rovingmanwereturnedbackwards,
manhimself
.Animosity,cruelty,thepleasureofpursuing,raiding,changing
anddestroying
allthiswaspittedagainstthepersonwhohadsuch
istheoriginof
badconscience.
(GMII:16)
andforcedintotheoppressivenarrownessandconformityofcustom,
turnedintoafeelingof
inmind,ofcourse,thatthesameGermanword,
,canmeanboth
debtandguilt.Whatisinvolvedinthe
ofdebt?Howdoes
havingadebtdifferfromfeelingguilty?
saysonecommentatorhelpfully,
isanexperienceofrepre-
whichonerecognizesasjusti
(May1999:77).Guilt,then,doesnot
requireany
observer:onecanfeelguiltyfortransgressingnorms,
evenifnooneknowsofthetransgression.
Moreover,tofeelguiltyisto
feelthat
onecouldhavedoneotherwise
(onecouldhave
transgressedthe
norms)andtofeelthatthetransgressionre
ectsafundamentaldefectof
characterorpersonhood.
isapainfulemotion,re
ectingan
awarenessofdeepinadequacyorde
ciency:itentailsself-lacerationand
self-loathing.
Aconsciousnessofadebtcandifferfromguiltalongallthesedimensions:
theeventsthatgiverisetothedebt(Ifeeladebttomyfather,though
couldnothavedoneotherwise
thanbehisson);andadebtdoesnotneces-
sarilyre
ectafundamentalfailureofcharacter(Iowealargemortgage,
butthisdoesnotmakemeareprehensibleperson).Ofcourse,debtscan
acquiresomeofthetrappingsofguilt(e.g.,someonewhorunsuphuge
doneso).Butoncethathappens,itismorenaturaltosaythattheperson
feelsguilty
aboutthedebts,thantosayonlythatheorsheisindebt.
Thepuzzle,torepeat,oftheSecondEssayishowacapacitytofeel
turnsintoacapacityto
feelguilty.
Sections19
tohiscreditorincivillaw,
Schuld],whichcontinually
increasesbecausetheseancestorscontinuetoexistasmightyspirits,
givingthetribenewadvantagesandlendingitsomeoftheirpower
(GMII:19).
Theancestorsofthemostpowerfultribes,
togods
Schuld]and
withreligiousprecepts
(GMII:21).
Asnoted,theworditselfadmitsbothrenderings;thequestioniswhich
renderingmakesmostsenseofthepassagesinquestion.
Wecan,in
Section20tellsusthat
Thefeelingofdebttowardsadeitycontinued
togrowforseveralmillennia,
andthat
theChristianGodasthemaximal
thatsection20issimplycontinuingthelineofthoughtintroducedin
section19,andgiventhatsection19(evenonDiethe
srendering⤀concerned
only
debt
rsttocreditors,thentoancestors,thentoancestors-cum-gods),
itmakesmoresensetotreatChristianityassimplyelevatingthefeelingof
ratherthan
menschlichesSchuldbewusstseins
suchthat
wouldinvolvea
secondinnocence
Unschuld
i.e.,anerasureofthisfeelingofindebtedness
becausehumanswouldnolongerbelieveinthecreditor,namelyGod.
Theuseof
innocence
⤀mightsuggestthatthecontrasting
concept⠀
⤀shouldberenderedas
ratherthan
guilt)towardgods,because,infact,theconcept
debt
hasbeen
inawaythatmakesitinvulnerabletoatheism.Thatis
whatsection20hadsofarignoredinitsdiscussionofthefeelingof
17IwasledtoappreciatethispointbycorrespondencewithMathiasRisseconcerningRisse2001.
CommentaryontheSecondEssay
).Thequestionnowisinwhatdoesthemoralizationof
asfollows:
thewaythey
arepushedbackintoconscience;moreprecisely,theentanglement
Verwicklung
]of
consciencewiththeconceptofGod.
Thecrucial
question,ofcourse,iswhyatheismwouldnotsuf
cetodefeatthis
withtheconceptofGod.Afterall,whatdistinguishes
theargumentofsection21fromsection20is,onthereadingproposed
here,theclaimthatoncedebtismoralized,lackofbeliefinGodnolonger
cestoerasethe(moralized)feelingofindebtedness.Whynot?
turnitinto
beforeGodinordertoenhancehisabilitytotorture
bedischarged(atleastnotinthisworld):
aonce-and-for-all
18ThemaindifficultyintheusefulRisse(2001)isthatIdonotseethathehasagoodanswertothis
question.Risse(2001)alsoemphasizesthedistinctiveroleof
Christianity
,asdistinctfrom
payment
istobe
foreclosed
⠀GMII:21),forexample,viaideaslike
original
inChristianity(GMII:21)ortheidea
ofexistenceingeneral
inherentlyworthless
andthusunredeemable,asinBuddhism⠀GMII:21).
Thisisnow
severedfromany
particular
transgressionandturned
intoageneralstateofbeingfortheactorssoaf
icted.Ofcourse,
outof
forthedebtor
(GMII:21).In
otherwords,thecreditor(God)whosacri
ceshisson(Jesus)forthe
(sins)ofmankind
outoflove
forthisdebtor(sinner)has,
throughtheverysamegesture,simplyampli
edmankind
sfeelingof
indebtednesstowhollynewlevels:onehasnotonlytheoriginaldebt,but
nowtheevengreaterdebtresultingfromthecreditor
sastonishing
ce!Theinternalizedcrueltyassociatedwith
badconscience
appearstobethatthemotivationforthatmoralization
drivetoself-torturethatgrowsoutofthebadconscienceasinternalized
issopowerfulinthepsychethatrealatheismisimpossible.
Indeed,thesuggestionappearstobethatbeliefinGodhasbecomean
epiphenomenonofthewilltoself-torture;givingupbeliefinGod,by
itself,wouldsimplynotaffectthedeep,underlyingstructureofinternalized
aggressionthatoriginallygaverisetothatbelief.
withreligiousprecepts,thatelevatethefeelingofindebtednesstonew,
CommentaryontheSecondEssay
painfulextremes,i.e.,thefeelingofdebtsthatcanneverbedischarged,
debtsthatre
ectbadlyonone
spersonhood,debtsforwhichoneiseternally
responsible.Butthentheexplanationforwhydebtsaremoralizedinthis
wayappears,onceagain,tobethatwehaveabadconscience,i.e.,wetake
pleasureincrueltytoourselves.Soitlooks,then,liketheinternalization
ofcrueltyisthe
explanationfortheriseofguiltyconscience:it
explainsourcapacityforinternalself-assessment(werelishbeingcruelto
ourselves),
and
itexplainswhydebtbecomesmoralizedandturnsintoguilt.
Ifthatwereright,wewouldbeleftwithapuzzle.Sincetheinter-
nalizationofcrueltyisaneventofpre-history(anecessaryprecondition
justifymantoacertaindegree,evenifhe[theGreek]wasinthewrong
they[thegods]servedascausesofevil
theydidnot,atthattime,takethe
punishmentonthemselves,butrather,asis
,theguilt.
(GMII:23)
Herewehaveexplicitcon
rmationthatonecanhave
badconscience
andatthesametimenothaveitexpressedviatheself-tortureassociated
withChristianguilt.TheGreekshavebadconscience
aswesawearlier,
GreekslikeOedipuscansufferfromthethroesofinternalself-assessment
(e.g.,byreferencetoshamenorms)
butde
ectitsexpressioninguiltin
partthroughthecreationofverydifferentgods.What,then,explains
whytheGreekscreateddifferentgodsfromwemoderns?Moreprecisely,
whatelseexplainsthemoralizationofdebtbeyondsimplythefactof
internalizedcruelty
internalizedcruelty
butalso
anaccountofwhyhumanbeingsadoptedthe
8AcommentaryontheThirdEssay
statesofself-denialinwhichweforgosatisfactionof
desires,notonlytherapaciousandsensualdesires
thedesiresfor
wealth,fame,domination,sexualgrati
cation,andsoforth,suggested
bythe
threegreatpompwords
butalsoordinarydesires,whose
cessationistheobject,forexample,ofSchopenhauer
sBuddhism-inspired
Explainingthesuccessofasceticideals
theearth[isnow]
3AnadditionalcasealludedtoinGMIII:1,women,isnotinfactdiscussedintheessay,exceptfora
superficialreferenceinGMIII:14.
arealsomentionedinGMIII:1,andarediscussed,arguably,
inGMIII:17.SeeJanaway1997:256
CommentaryontheThirdEssay
Ifeveryanimalmanifeststhisinstinctivedrivetowardmaximumfeelings
arriveat
themoreseriousquestion:whatdoesitmeanifagenuine
philosopher
investigate,dare
hiswilltoneutralityandobjectivity
allputhimat
oddswith
theprimarydemandsofmoralityandconscience
(GMIII:9).
Indeed,extrapolatingfromearliertreatmentsofthesethemes(D:42),
sualized,whichhasbeenmaintaineduntilquiterecentlytothepointwhere
6Indeed,despitehisfamedpessimism,Schopenhauer,theman,was,infact,a
bonvivant
whoenjoyed
drink,women,andthenightlife.He
feltthestrongattractionofsensualdesires.
CommentaryontheThirdEssay
italmostcountedforthe
philosophicalattitudeassuch
thisisprimarilya
resultofthedesperateconditionsunderwhichphilosophyevolvedandexists
atall:thatis,philosophywouldhavebeen
absolutelyimpossible
formostofthe
example,ontheperson
sconditionorstatus,theopportunitiesavailable,
Onthedoctrineofthefeelingof
tingandhurtingothersarewaysofexercisingone
spower
uponothers;thatisallonedesiresinsuchcases
(GS:13).Tobeina
positiontobene
tothersistohaveastatus
aconsciousnessofdifference
whichitselfgives
afeelingofpower
(WP:688)
overandabovethe
ciary;sotoowithhurting,thoughhereaswellthereisakindof
dominationandcontrolthatismadetangiblethroughtheabilitytohurt.
Thisleads,conversely,totheexplanationfor
praise
Asortofrestoration
ofbalanceinrespectofbene
domination
oftheself,aswellashurtingtheself.Perhapsmostimportantly
natureofwhichwasfarfrombeingunderstood
(GMIII:13).
course,israthervague,butwehavealreadyseentheexplanatorycon-
straintatissue:thedoctrineofwilltopowerofGMIII:7.If,infact,
everyanimal
strivestomaximizethefeelingsofpower,theneventhose
likeasceticpriestsorthemajorityofmortalswhoembracethe
idealtaughtbytheasceticpriest,must
twithinthesameexplanatory
scheme.Buthowandwhy?
Thecruxoftheargumentinvolvesthreeclaims.
(1)Sufferingisacentralfactofthehumancondition.
(2)Meaninglesssufferingisunbearableandleadsto
suicidalnihilism
(GMIII:28).
tionsagainstthehappy
(GMIII:14).Since
ofmortals
physiologicalcasualties
(GMIII:1),itfollowsthatmostpeoplesuffer
ressentiment
Butwhywouldsufferingitself(forphysiologicalorotherreasons)give
riseto
discharge
oftheir
ressentiment
wouldnumbtheirsuffering,but
canonlybedischargedwhenithasanobject.Sothepsychological
logicofthisphenomenonhastwostagesandonepremise.Thetwostages
are:suffererswantrelieffromtheirsuffering;hence,sufferersseeksome-
onetoblamefortheirsuffering,someone(orthing)uponwhomtovent
their
ressentiment
.Thepremiseis:thedischargeofstrongemotionsdeadens
canreleasehisemotions
(GMIII:15).Theultimateconsequenceofsuch
unrelievedsufferingwouldbe
suicidalnihilism
(GMIII:28).The
question,inturn,ishow
);D:204⠀
Themeansemployedbythelustforpowerhavechanged,butthesamevolcano
continuestoglow
CommentaryontheThirdEssay
ofcourse,thathumansstandalmostcontinuouslyinviolationofthe
involuntarilylonged-fornarcoticagainstpainofanykind
(GMIII:15).
Thus,byallowingthesufferertodischargehis
againsthimself
inpowerfulfeelingsof
incumbentuponhimtoconsiderwhatrivalstheremightbe.Thus,in
thesedifferentthinkersandseekersaftertruthissimplythe
mostintel-
lectualizedproduct
Onepossibilityissuggestedbyathemewe
rstconsideredinChapter
course,ispreciselythetopic
termsofitsviewof
inquirersaremovedbytheirdesires,theirpassions,theiraffections,toask
certainkindsofquestions,lookintocertainkindsoftopics,pursuecertain
directionsofresearch.Sojustasseeinganobjectfromacertainangle
playsaconstitutiveroleinwhatisseen(youseethe
ofthedoor,but
nottheback,becauseyouarestandingoutside),sotoointerestsoraffects
playaconstitutiveroleinknowledge:youcometo
abouttheaspects
ofthephenomenainquestionthatanswertoyourparticularinterestsand
Considerausefulanalogy⠀
rstbroachedinChapter1).Ifwewantedto
Itistrue,tobesure,thatthecharacterizationofourepistemicsituation
aboutknowledge,i.e.,anepistemologicaldoctrine,and
asasemantic
ofourbeliefinanoumenalrealm(touseKant
sterminology).In
[i.e.,noumenal]world.Itisthegreatinspirerofdoubtanddevaluatorin
respectoftheworld
weare
himselfasthepurveyorof
terribletruths
thatwould,indeed,be
dangerousforthewrongkindofreader.
Ourhighestinsights,
hesays,
andshould
asfarasweunderstandhimmechanistically.Formerlymanwasgivena
freewill
ashisdowryfromahigherorder:todaywehavetakenhiswill
andthesenses
mortalshroud
thenwemiscalculate
thatisall!
(A:14)
freenascenthigherhumanbeingsfromtheirfalseconsciousness
realityaboutthe
questionoftheGreek
srelationtopain[orsuffering,onemightadd],hisdegreeofsensitivity,isbasic:
didthisrelationremainconstant?Ordiditchangeradically?
Andnowwecansee,aswell,thelinkwiththeexplanatorypuzzleof
theFirstEssay:namelywhydidslavemoralitytriumph,whydidthe
theeliteofthelateRomanEmpire
adoptsuchamorality?As
CommentaryontheThirdEssay
suicidalnihilism,
arguments
Antichrist
aretheslenderevidenceonwhichelaborateviewsaboutthe
LawsofManu
(pp.310
12).Thepassagefrom
TheAntichrist
laudatorywhenreadoutofcontext;asBrobjerremarks:
Evenintheearly
UntimelyMeditations
,thishostilityisalreadyevident.
sametimekeepaway,createadistance,forbid
understanding,as
saidabove
whiletheyopentheearsofthosewhoseearsarerelatedtoours.
(GS:381)
Orsimilarly:
Ourhighestinsightsmust
andshould
soundlikefollies
beanovelandimportantone,butanyonewhoreadshisrepeated
denunciationsofmoralitycannotescapethefeelingthathesufferedfrom
acertainexplanatorytunnel-vision,withtheresultthat,insomemeasure,
hiscaseagainstmoralityseemsoverstated.
(2)Onfurtherre
ratherthatthey
toomuchinthevalueofaltruism,equality,
happiness,andtheothernormsofMPS.Eventhoughthereisneither
muchaltruismnorequalityintheworld,thereisalmostuniversal
endorsementofthe
ofaltruismandequality
even,notoriously(and
(3)OnemightwanttorespondonFoot
sbehalf,however,andinsistthat
Now,infact,itseemsthatitispreciselythismoraloptimismcommon,for
example,toutilitariansandMarxists
thisbeliefthatamoremoralsociety
wouldproducemoreopportunityformorepeopletodocreativework
that
reconciledwiththefactofsuffering?What
thealternativestothe
Myaiminthe
rsteditionwastomakesomephilosophicalsenseof
inanythingresemblingascienti
cmanner,nordotheyevenwinsupport
fromanycontemporaneousscienceofHume
sday.
character,Janaway
sformulationmayserveinsteadasawayofstatinga
pertinentconstrainton
explanations:namelythattheydonot
invokeentitiesormechanismsthatsciencehasruledoutofbounds.But
evenso,itmayseemanunnecessarilyweakcriterion:whynotexpect,
instead,thatagoodspeculativenaturalistwillrelyonexplanatory
mechanismsthatenjoysomeevidentialsupport,orthatenjoyawide
explanatoryscope,ofthekindweexpectgenuineexplanationsinthe
underlyingaffectivestatesarearousedandalteredis,itself,aphilosophical
positionthatcanbestatedunemotionally.WhatJanawayfailstoestablish
philosophicalpractice,i.e.,whathespendsmostofhistimedoinginhis
Tothis,Janawayobjectsthat
ofgenealogy
explicitlyincorporatesculturalfactors,viaanthropology,
asacentralpartoftherelevantcognitivesciencethatshould
gureinour
onethatdependsonanthropocentricconcepts
theirconceptsofwhatcancausewhatrunafoulofsubstantive
ndingsof
thesciencesthemselves(e.g.,thereisnoempiricalevidenceinsupportof
supernaturalinterventionsinnaturalphenomena,orinthecausalpower
thesedisparateculturalartifactshaveincommon,namelytheirgenesis
fromtendenciesrootedinthenatureofthehuman.
TheotherpartofGemesandJanaway
scritique
concerningthe
ofthenecessary,butnotsuf
cient,characterizationofwhatit
isforanexplananstobe
causallyprimary
simplyexploitsafamiliar
problemaboutempiricistanalysesofcausation,fromHumetoMackie:
namelythatthey
ounderontheproblemofpickingouttheregular
thatcountforpurposesofcausationor,inthecaseof
Mackie,inspecifyingtheconditionsthataremerelynon-causal
back-
conditionswhenwepickouttheINUScauseofanevent(where
theINUScauseis
aninsuf
cientbutnecessarypartofanunnecessary
butsuf
cientcondition
fortheeventhappening).Havingaheaddoes
notcauseanyonetobeaphilosopher(evenifitisanecessarycondition),
notionofwilltopower,whichmayessentiallyimportnotionsofoverpowering
canceinhisownappraisalofhiscorpus,isadditionalreasontobe
outcomeofrationalre
ectionordiscursiveness,aconclusioninsync
withthe
ndingsoftheascendant
socialintuitionism
intheempirical
moralpsychologyofJonathanHaidt(2001)andothers.
Barnes,Jonathan(1986)
Craig,Gordon(1991)
TheGermans
,NewYork:Penguin/Meridian.
Danto,Arthur([1965]1980)
Geuss,Raymond(1981)
TheIdeaofaCriticalTheory:HabermasandtheFrankfurt
,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
(1994⤀
Jones,Ernest(1955)
TheLifeandWorkofSigmundFreud
,vol.2,NewYork:Basic
Pereboom,Derk(2001)
LivingwithoutFreeWill
,Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Pizer,John(1990)
TheUseandAbuseof
:OnFoucault
sReadingof
Rutherford,Donald(2011)
Stroud,Barry(1977)
,London:Routledge.
TheCharmofNaturalism,
ProceedingsandAddressesoftheAmerican
PhilosophicalAssociation
70:43
Thatcher,DavidS.(1989)
ZurGenealogiederMoral
:SomeTextualAnnotations,
action,agency46
50,60,61
63,119n,130,
69,171
Christianity,Christian(s)10
11,13,58,63,
107,139,148
50,152
53,155
58,163,
77,190
92,194,198,203,208,219,
236,239,244
Churchlands,PatriciaandPaul50
Clark,Maudemariex,xiiin,xiv,xvi
xviii,2n,
11n,12
15,18,18
19n,25,45,60n,61n,
14,115,135
37,138n,145n,147
51,159n,180,181,187n,193n,221,
234,258
84;contrastedwith
guilt189;moralizationof183,188
92,194;
seealso
badconscience
decadence128
29,154
deconstruction,deconstructionism1,12,29,
34,234
Deleuze,Gillesxi,43n,60n,162n
DeMan,Paul12,29,57,76
democracy110,114,241
Democritus30n,37,40,50
72;NaturalisticArgument71,72
FreeWillThesis63
64,90,132;and
seductionoflanguage172
seealso
autonomy;AutonomyCondition;
compatibilism;fatalism;will
Freud,Sigmund1,2,4,9
10,10n,95,178
182,185
86,245,250
Gardner,Sebastianx,10n,207n,210n
seealso
badconscience
Guthrie,W.K.C.31
32,35,37,38,40,41n,
87,141
Haidt,Jonathan262
happiness22,103,104
8,112,240,241
HarmPuzzle107
Hayman,Ronald27n,53,107
health67,95,98,106,128,175
hedonism41n,97,105,201,258n
Hegel42
Heidegger,Martinxi,xv,xvii,233,262
Helmholtz,Hermannvon34n,52
Heraclitus31,40
41,50,85
highermen/humanbeings58,62,81,84,91,
103,108,117
18,122
23,127
31,141,145,149
50,169
71,177,
224,226
27,230,232,236,238,240,242,
seealso
humanexcellence/greatness
Hippocrates37,40
Hitler,Adolf122
Hobbes,Thomas235n
Holbach,Barond
Hollingdale,R.J.xvii
xviii,113
Homer(ic)164,188,228
excellence/greatness21
23,27,68,92,
8,110,130
31,149,231,
232,237,240,242;
seealso
men/humanbeings
humannature1
4,20
21,36,245,256;
seealso
Humboldt,Wilhelmvon27
Hume2,4,9
10,18n,58,70,74,158,245
57,260,261,263
Hunt,Lesterxiii,xiv,35n,111n,119n,234n
Hussain,Nadeemx,115n
Hutcheson,Francis158
idealism,idealist12,34,42,52,215
illiberal(ism)232
33,241
instincts59,102
3,128,152,179n,184
194,201;
seealso
affects;drive(s);interests
interests16,62,85
90,142,217
19;objective
seealso
affects;drive(s);goodness;
internalcritique
50,54,56
57,245
47,252,257,261;
Richardson,Johnx,xi,xiv,xvii,161n,162n,
166n,201n,257n,259n
Ridley,Aaronxiiin,104n,180n,207n
Risse,Mathias153n,179n,180183n,190n,
191n,193n
Ritschl,Friedrich24,28,29
Robertson,Simon60n,63n
Romans,RomanEmpire,Rome152,155
164,173,177,193,203,228
29,247
Rorty,Richard1,2n,9,17
18,66n
Rosenthal,David261
Rousseau,Jean-Jacques170,235n
Rutherford,Donaldx,xi,80n,81,181
Russell,Bertrand235n
Safranski,Rüdiger27n
Salaquarda,Jörg52n
Schaberg,William25n
Schacht,Richardxvii,2n,11n,44,58
59,60n,
81n,101,102,112,116,118,235n
Schnädelbach,Herbert34n,42,51,52n,53,56
Schopenhauer8,10n,12,13n,27,31n,41,
50,52
53,54n,57,64,66,69n,71,
78,81,93n,102,198
200,205,211n,
17,219,232n,238,244
Schutte,Ofelia59,60n
science5
6,9,11,13,17
18,25,27,32,34,
40,52
54,56,77,116n,198,211
14,218,
219,223
scopeproblem
self46,67n,82,203;affirmationof167,169,
172;creationof76
81;loveof103,109
148,239⠀
seealso
egoism;selfishness);
masteryof79
81;overcomingof93n,209;
preservationof203,211;reverencefor
97,121,170
71;transparencyof62,63,
83,90,132⠀
seealso
morality,inthe
pejorativesense,descriptivecomponentof,
critiqueof);
seealso
action;character
selfishness(self-interest)101,103,147,
seealso
selflessness59,103,108
9,140n,187,251n;
seealso
sex,sexuality44,102,156,197,199
200,208,
SextusEmpiricus212n
Shaw,Tamsinx,21,103
Sher,Itai
M.S.25,28
SimilarityThesis63,83
90,132;
seealso
morality,inthepejorativesense,descriptive
componentof,critiqueof
Sinhababu,Neil144,197n
SkepticalReading
perspectivism
skeptics,skepticism212
13,219,221,223,233
seealso
knowledge,limitationson(valueof)
slaves,slaverevoltinmorals,slavemorality60,
100,123,137
38,140,145,152
54,156
57,
158,160
65,170,173
77,178,196,202,
7,229,257n
Smart,J.J.C.50,63n
Smilansky,Saul75n
Socrates,Socratic30,33,39
40,214,228
seealso
rationalism
Solomon,Maynard98
Solomon,Robert60n
Sophists,Sophistic9,27,30
42,57,84,86,
87n,90,141
Sophocles37
Spencer,Herbert97
Spinoza3,6,31,41,50,80n,81,93n
Stack,George52
Stegmaier,Wernerxiiin
Stern,J.P.25,28
Stoics113
Strawson,Galen71
72,78
Stroud,Barry4,245,254
character
suffering44,57,103
8,148,176,185,186,
11,214,227
31,239,241
supernatural,supernaturalism4,9,20,138
Swensen,Alanxiiin,xvi
xvii,145n,146,159n,
187n,193n
Taylor,Charles54
Tertullian163,203
Thales30n,31
32,214
Thatcher,Davidxiiin,145n,159n
unconscious(non-conscious)70,72
74,76,83,
126,261
utilitarian,utilitarianism59,63n,104
5,108n,
112,232n,241
value(s):anti-realismabout111
12,118
30;creating/legislating5n,9,32,54,
78,98,116n,156,163,214,248;
epistemic11
12,125
26,129
30;andlife
102;moral23,58,85,119
25⠀
seealso
morality);non-moral(prudential⤀
goodness,prudential;realismabout110
125;revaluationof2,21
23,33,44,58,60,
68,95,110
11,122,125,145,151,153,
58,162
63,185,202,226,235n,244;
roleincausingaction77
Velleman,J.David71,73,75,80
Vitzthum,Richard50
Vogt,Karl51
Voltaire93n
Wagner,Richard25,43,198
Watson,Gary70,71n,75
Weber,Max1,119
Wegner,Daniel262
Weinberg,Steven219
goodness,prudential
Bookmark, highlight
and
annotate
quality research
at
the
click of a
Kor

Приложенные файлы

  • pdf 18356936
    Размер файла: 2 MB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий