Slave and Master Morality

Nietzsche makes some interesting points in regards to slave and master morality which seemed to create some disagreements within the class. I think the different perceptions on the text can result from how a person is brought up and how their mind works.

For instance, when I think of “slave morality” I think of a “follower”, a person without their own ideas, someone who just goes with the crowd and conforms. However, some classmates seemed to reference slave morality with exactly what it sounds like, slaves. Although Nietzsche could have been an advocator of slavery, of which I am unsure because I have little knowledge in regards to his life, I’m viewing this philosophical ideas from a more modern and contemporary point of view. And so, master morality, to me, is about a person who is a master of their own life, one who doesn’t conform, who lives their life the way they wish. But some classmates took master morality to mean morality of “masters”, of queens, kings, those of the upper class, etc. Some believe that if one is in that position then they are automatically a master. Although one is born into royalty, one cannot be a master unless they take full responsibility of themselves and their life.

Now I would like to go against this type of narrow thinking. Even though someone is born into their “mastery” does not guarantee that they will become a master. Although it’s thought that it is predestined what a person will be, how events will play out, I find that notion to be irrelevant to life. It disregards the fact that we still have to make decisions for ourselves that we still choose what to do and how to be. If we didn’t do so, we would just sit at home all day and never do anything. That’s why it bothers me when people talk about destiny and free will. It really just doesn’t matter.

Let’s create a scenario. There is a princess, she is born to be a master, her destiny is to become queen and that is apparently the only “choice” she has. However, this is completely incorrect. If she wanted, truly wanted to, she could leave her family, abandon the crown, and live her life in a different way. Now, this might seem dramatic and unappealing to the general public but sometimes people do what they have to in order to be “free”. Everything depends on the individual and it’s difficult to classify this type of information into stereotypes because everyone is different. When a person is subscribing to a stereotype, they are following slave morality. A queen, who is a master, can still be subscribing to slave morality because if they aren’t doing what they want, they are following what is told for them to do.

Sure, a slave can have master morality and a master can have slave morality. However, whether or not they are able to exercise that power and take action ultimately determines what that person’s true morality is. If you’re being true to yourself though, it’s impossible to take part in this contradiction.

So I suppose what I’m trying to say is that there should be different terms attached to a “slave” and a “master” in relation to having “slave morality” and “master morality”. Due to the vagueness and ambiguity of these terms it’s impossible to truly understand how I am deciphering these ideas. And maybe that’s why I struggled so hard upon writing this because I cannot tell how we should define the terms.

And so it occurs to me that the reason why there was misunderstanding in class is due to the misrepresentation of terms.