Master–Slave Morality

The SEP[1] is probably a better reference than Wikipedia for most philosophical topics, especially for individuals like Nietzsche (who, for various reasons, tends to find himself in the intersection of vaguely reactionary thinkers and people who want to read philosophy without seriously engaging with the rest of the canon).<p>In particular, this Wikipedia article gives the incorrect impression that Nietzsche is especially cynical about divine command and deontological ethics and implies that the MS divide is in some ways constructive. Neither is the case: Nietzsche&#x27;s moral cynicism is universal and the MS divide is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive or constructive.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;nietzsche-moral-political&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;nietzsche-moral-political...</a>

Reminded of this quote from Cannery Row:<p>&quot;It has always seemed strange to me, the things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.&quot;

I can&#x27;t be the only one thinking this would be an article on drive replication.

An example why German philosophy of late 19th century is considered deranged by many... Cherry picking some facts, dissecting them in detail, reassembling them in some convincing fashion, pretending conclusions are true without any proof of causality and then just observing how that philosophy spreads like wildfire among people that want to look trendy, contributing to two world wars later.

Classroom morality: the behaviors that make the teacher&#x27;s day easier and get good grades.<p>Playground morality: the behaviors that make a kid popular and respected by the other children.<p>...<p>This Nietzsche is interesting and it hit me like a slap in the face when I first encountered it, but the most fleshed out and vivid form of this type of thinking is Ribbonfarm <i>Gervaise Principle</i> articles.

Similarly-named (I mistook OP for this) but much, much more interesting:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Master%E2%80%93slave_dialectic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Master%E2%80%93slave_dialectic</a>

Something I wrote previously:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;genevievefiles.blogspot.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;putting-victimhood-behind-you.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;genevievefiles.blogspot.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;putting-victimhoo...</a>

Shouldn&#x27;t we rename this wikipedia page into Leader-Follower morality?

Hypothesis: In a liberal democracy, when leaders adopts a persona of master morality, the slaves are threatened. If leaders instead project a slave morality, the slaves are peaceable and content.<p>But behind the scenes, it seems like a state needs to rule with master morality, but for peaceableness, promote the adoption of slave morality among the slaves.<p>Controversial view: Christianity is a perfect ruling tool because it incentivizes slave morality which keeps people peaceful.<p>Caveat: I&#x27;m not saying Christ wasn&#x27;t real nor an amazing person. Just noting how the religion could be co-opted for ruling purpose.

I came away with a feeling that the article was not representative. It felt creepy, even.<p>It&#x27;s frankly a disgusting argument.

This is not a meaningful or interesting article for Hacker News, and in the world of Philosophy this is not a slam dunk of a concept.