Reading Help Beyond good and evil
of the law, or of God himself), or they even justify themselves `
` by maxims from the current opinions of the herd, as "first `
` servants of their people," or "instruments of the public weal". `
` On the other hand, the gregarious European man nowadays assumes `
` an air as if he were the only kind of man that is allowable, he `
` glorifies his qualities, such as public spirit, kindness, `
` deference, industry, temperance, modesty, indulgence, sympathy, `
` by virtue of which he is gentle, endurable, and useful to the `
` herd, as the peculiarly human virtues. In cases, however, where `
` it is believed that the leader and bell-wether cannot be `
` dispensed with, attempt after attempt is made nowadays to replace `
` commanders by the summing together of clever gregarious men all `
` representative constitutions, for example, are of this origin. In `
` spite of all, what a blessing, what a deliverance from a weight `
` becoming unendurable, is the appearance of an absolute ruler for `
` these gregarious Europeans--of this fact the effect of the `
` appearance of Napoleon was the last great proof the history of `
` the influence of Napoleon is almost the history of the higher `
` happiness to which the entire century has attained in its `
` worthiest individuals and periods. `
` `
` 200. The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races with `
` one another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent in `
` his body--that is to say, contrary, and often not only contrary, `
` instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one another `
` and are seldom at peace--such a man of late culture and broken `
` lights, will, on an average, be a weak man. His fundamental `
` desire is that the war which is IN HIM should come to an end; `
` happiness appears to him in the character of a soothing medicine `
` and mode of thought (for instance, Epicurean or Christian); it is `
` above all things the happiness of repose, of undisturbedness, of `
` repletion, of final unity--it is the "Sabbath of Sabbaths," to `
` use the expression of the holy rhetorician, St. Augustine, who `
` was himself such a man.--Should, however, the contrariety and `
` conflict in such natures operate as an ADDITIONAL incentive and `
` stimulus to life--and if, on the other hand, in addition to their `
` powerful and irreconcilable instincts, they have also inherited `
` and indoctrinated into them a proper mastery and subtlety for `
` carrying on the conflict with themselves (that is to say, the `
` faculty of self-control and self-deception), there then arise `
` those marvelously incomprehensible and inexplicable beings, those `
` enigmatical men, predestined for conquering and circumventing `
` others, the finest examples of which are Alcibiades and Caesar `
` (with whom I should like to associate the FIRST of Europeans `
` according to my taste, the Hohenstaufen, Frederick the Second), `
` and among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appear `
` precisely in the same periods when that weaker type, with its `
` longing for repose, comes to the front; the two types are `
` complementary to each other, and spring from the same causes. `
` `
` 201. As long as the utility which determines moral estimates is `
` only gregarious utility, as long as the preservation of the `
` community is only kept in view, and the immoral is sought `
` precisely and exclusively in what seems dangerous to the `
` maintenance of the community, there can be no "morality of love `
` to one's neighbour." Granted even that there is already a little `
` constant exercise of consideration, sympathy, fairness, `
` gentleness, and mutual assistance, granted that even in this `
` condition of society all those instincts are already active which `
` are latterly distinguished by honourable names as "virtues," and `
` eventually almost coincide with the conception "morality": in `
` that period they do not as yet belong to the domain of moral `
` valuations--they are still ULTRA-MORAL. A sympathetic action, for `
` instance, is neither called good nor bad, moral nor immoral, in `
` the best period of the Romans; and should it be praised, a sort `
` of resentful disdain is compatible with this praise, even at the `
` best, directly the sympathetic action is compared with one which `
` contributes to the welfare of the whole, to the RES PUBLICA. `
` After all, "love to our neighbour" is always a secondary matter, `
` partly conventional and arbitrarily manifested in relation to our `
` FEAR OF OUR NEIGHBOUR. After the fabric of society seems on the `
` whole established and secured against external dangers, it is `
` this fear of our neighbour which again creates new perspectives `
` of moral valuation. Certain strong and dangerous instincts, such `
` as the love of enterprise, foolhardiness, revengefulness, `
` astuteness, rapacity, and love of power, which up till then had `
` not only to be honoured from the point of view of general `
` utility--under other names, of course, than those here given--but `
` had to be fostered and cultivated (because they were perpetually `
` required in the common danger against the common enemies), are `
` now felt in their dangerousness to be doubly strong--when the `
` outlets for them are lacking--and are gradually branded as `
` immoral and given over to calumny. The contrary instincts and `
` inclinations now attain to moral honour, the gregarious instinct `
` gradually draws its conclusions. How much or how little `
` dangerousness to the community or to equality is contained in an `
` opinion, a condition, an emotion, a disposition, or an endowment-- `
` that is now the moral perspective, here again fear is the mother `
` of morals. It is by the loftiest and strongest instincts, when `
` they break out passionately and carry the individual far above `
` and beyond the average, and the low level of the gregarious `
` conscience, that the self-reliance of the community is destroyed, `
` its belief in itself, its backbone, as it were, breaks, `
` consequently these very instincts will be most branded and `
` defamed. The lofty independent spirituality, the will to stand `
` alone, and even the cogent reason, are felt to be dangers, `
` everything that elevates the individual above the herd, and is a `
` source of fear to the neighbour, is henceforth called EVIL, the `
` tolerant, unassuming, self-adapting, self-equalizing disposition, `
` the MEDIOCRITY of desires, attains to moral distinction and `
` honour. Finally, under very peaceful circumstances, there is `
` always less opportunity and necessity for training the feelings `
` to severity and rigour, and now every form of severity, even in `
` justice, begins to disturb the conscience, a lofty and rigorous `
` nobleness and self-responsibility almost offends, and awakens `
` distrust, "the lamb," and still more "the sheep," wins respect. `
` There is a point of diseased mellowness and effeminacy in the `
` history of society, at which society itself takes the part of him `
` who injures it, the part of the CRIMINAL, and does so, in fact, `
` seriously and honestly. To punish, appears to it to be somehow `
` unfair--it is certain that the idea of "punishment" and "the `
` obligation to punish" are then painful and alarming to people. `
` "Is it not sufficient if the criminal be rendered HARMLESS? Why `
` should we still punish? Punishment itself is terrible!"--with `
` these questions gregarious morality, the morality of fear, draws `
` its ultimate conclusion. If one could at all do away with danger, `
` the cause of fear, one would have done away with this morality at `
` the same time, it would no longer be necessary, it WOULD NOT `
` CONSIDER ITSELF any longer necessary!--Whoever examines the `
` conscience of the present-day European, will always elicit the `
` same imperative from its thousand moral folds and hidden `
` recesses, the imperative of the timidity of the herd "we wish `
` that some time or other there may be NOTHING MORE TO FEAR!" Some `
` time or other--the will and the way THERETO is nowadays called `
` "progress" all over Europe. `
` `
` 202. Let us at once say again what we have already said a hundred `
` times, for people's ears nowadays are unwilling to hear such `
` truths--OUR truths. We know well enough how offensive it sounds `
` when any one plainly, and without metaphor, counts man among the `
` animals, but it will be accounted to us almost a CRIME, that it `
` is precisely in respect to men of "modern ideas" that we have `
` constantly applied the terms "herd," "herd-instincts," and such `
` like expressions. What avail is it? We cannot do otherwise, for `
` it is precisely here that our new insight is. We have found that `
` in all the principal moral judgments, Europe has become `
` unanimous, including likewise the countries where European `
` influence prevails in Europe people evidently KNOW what Socrates `
` thought he did not know, and what the famous serpent of old once `
` promised to teach--they "know" today what is good and evil. It `
` must then sound hard and be distasteful to the ear, when we `
` always insist that that which here thinks it knows, that which `
` here glorifies itself with praise and blame, and calls itself `
` good, is the instinct of the herding human animal, the instinct `
` which has come and is ever coming more and more to the front, to `
` preponderance and supremacy over other instincts, according to `
` the increasing physiological approximation and resemblance of `
` which it is the symptom. MORALITY IN EUROPE AT PRESENT IS `
` HERDING-ANIMAL MORALITY, and therefore, as we understand the `
` matter, only one kind of human morality, beside which, before `
` which, and after which many other moralities, and above all `
` HIGHER moralities, are or should be possible. Against such a `
` "possibility," against such a "should be," however, this morality `
` defends itself with all its strength, it says obstinately and `
` inexorably "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!" `
` Indeed, with the help of a religion which has humoured and `
` flattered the sublimest desires of the herding-animal, things `
` have reached such a point that we always find a more visible `
` expression of this morality even in political and social `
` arrangements: the DEMOCRATIC movement is the inheritance of the `
` Christian movement. That its TEMPO, however, is much too slow and `
` sleepy for the more impatient ones, for those who are sick and `
` distracted by the herding-instinct, is indicated by the `
` increasingly furious howling, and always less disguised teeth- `
` gnashing of the anarchist dogs, who are now roving through the `
` highways of European culture. Apparently in opposition to the `
` peacefully industrious democrats and Revolution-ideologues, and `
` still more so to the awkward philosophasters and fraternity- `
` visionaries who call themselves Socialists and want a "free `
` society," those are really at one with them all in their thorough `
` and instinctive hostility to every form of society other than `
` that of the AUTONOMOUS herd (to the extent even of repudiating `
` the notions "master" and "servant"--ni dieu ni maitre, says a `
` socialist formula); at one in their tenacious opposition to every `
` special claim, every special right and privilege (this means `
` ultimately opposition to EVERY right, for when all are equal, no `
` one needs "rights" any longer); at one in their distrust of `
` punitive justice (as though it were a violation of the weak, `
` unfair to the NECESSARY consequences of all former society); but `
` equally at one in their religion of sympathy, in their compassion `
` for all that feels, lives, and suffers (down to the very animals, `
` up even to "God"--the extravagance of "sympathy for God" belongs `
` to a democratic age); altogether at one in the cry and impatience `
` of their sympathy, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, `
` in their almost feminine incapacity for witnessing it or ALLOWING `
` it; at one in their involuntary beglooming and heart-softening, `
` under the spell of which Europe seems to be threatened with a new `
` Buddhism; at one in their belief in the morality of MUTUAL `
` sympathy, as though it were morality in itself, the climax, the `
` ATTAINED climax of mankind, the sole hope of the future, the `
` consolation of the present, the great discharge from all the `
` obligations of the past; altogether at one in their belief in the `
` community as the DELIVERER, in the herd, and therefore in `
` "themselves." `
` `
` 203. We, who hold a different belief--we, who regard the `
` democratic movement, not only as a degenerating form of political `
` organization, but as equivalent to a degenerating, a waning type `
` of man, as involving his mediocrising and depreciation: where `
` have WE to fix our hopes? In NEW PHILOSOPHERS--there is no other `
` alternative: in minds strong and original enough to initiate `
`
` by maxims from the current opinions of the herd, as "first `
` servants of their people," or "instruments of the public weal". `
` On the other hand, the gregarious European man nowadays assumes `
` an air as if he were the only kind of man that is allowable, he `
` glorifies his qualities, such as public spirit, kindness, `
` deference, industry, temperance, modesty, indulgence, sympathy, `
` by virtue of which he is gentle, endurable, and useful to the `
` herd, as the peculiarly human virtues. In cases, however, where `
` it is believed that the leader and bell-wether cannot be `
` dispensed with, attempt after attempt is made nowadays to replace `
` commanders by the summing together of clever gregarious men all `
` representative constitutions, for example, are of this origin. In `
` spite of all, what a blessing, what a deliverance from a weight `
` becoming unendurable, is the appearance of an absolute ruler for `
` these gregarious Europeans--of this fact the effect of the `
` appearance of Napoleon was the last great proof the history of `
` the influence of Napoleon is almost the history of the higher `
` happiness to which the entire century has attained in its `
` worthiest individuals and periods. `
` `
` 200. The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races with `
` one another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent in `
` his body--that is to say, contrary, and often not only contrary, `
` instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one another `
` and are seldom at peace--such a man of late culture and broken `
` lights, will, on an average, be a weak man. His fundamental `
` desire is that the war which is IN HIM should come to an end; `
` happiness appears to him in the character of a soothing medicine `
` and mode of thought (for instance, Epicurean or Christian); it is `
` above all things the happiness of repose, of undisturbedness, of `
` repletion, of final unity--it is the "Sabbath of Sabbaths," to `
` use the expression of the holy rhetorician, St. Augustine, who `
` was himself such a man.--Should, however, the contrariety and `
` conflict in such natures operate as an ADDITIONAL incentive and `
` stimulus to life--and if, on the other hand, in addition to their `
` powerful and irreconcilable instincts, they have also inherited `
` and indoctrinated into them a proper mastery and subtlety for `
` carrying on the conflict with themselves (that is to say, the `
` faculty of self-control and self-deception), there then arise `
` those marvelously incomprehensible and inexplicable beings, those `
` enigmatical men, predestined for conquering and circumventing `
` others, the finest examples of which are Alcibiades and Caesar `
` (with whom I should like to associate the FIRST of Europeans `
` according to my taste, the Hohenstaufen, Frederick the Second), `
` and among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appear `
` precisely in the same periods when that weaker type, with its `
` longing for repose, comes to the front; the two types are `
` complementary to each other, and spring from the same causes. `
` `
` 201. As long as the utility which determines moral estimates is `
` only gregarious utility, as long as the preservation of the `
` community is only kept in view, and the immoral is sought `
` precisely and exclusively in what seems dangerous to the `
` maintenance of the community, there can be no "morality of love `
` to one's neighbour." Granted even that there is already a little `
` constant exercise of consideration, sympathy, fairness, `
` gentleness, and mutual assistance, granted that even in this `
` condition of society all those instincts are already active which `
` are latterly distinguished by honourable names as "virtues," and `
` eventually almost coincide with the conception "morality": in `
` that period they do not as yet belong to the domain of moral `
` valuations--they are still ULTRA-MORAL. A sympathetic action, for `
` instance, is neither called good nor bad, moral nor immoral, in `
` the best period of the Romans; and should it be praised, a sort `
` of resentful disdain is compatible with this praise, even at the `
` best, directly the sympathetic action is compared with one which `
` contributes to the welfare of the whole, to the RES PUBLICA. `
` After all, "love to our neighbour" is always a secondary matter, `
` partly conventional and arbitrarily manifested in relation to our `
` FEAR OF OUR NEIGHBOUR. After the fabric of society seems on the `
` whole established and secured against external dangers, it is `
` this fear of our neighbour which again creates new perspectives `
` of moral valuation. Certain strong and dangerous instincts, such `
` as the love of enterprise, foolhardiness, revengefulness, `
` astuteness, rapacity, and love of power, which up till then had `
` not only to be honoured from the point of view of general `
` utility--under other names, of course, than those here given--but `
` had to be fostered and cultivated (because they were perpetually `
` required in the common danger against the common enemies), are `
` now felt in their dangerousness to be doubly strong--when the `
` outlets for them are lacking--and are gradually branded as `
` immoral and given over to calumny. The contrary instincts and `
` inclinations now attain to moral honour, the gregarious instinct `
` gradually draws its conclusions. How much or how little `
` dangerousness to the community or to equality is contained in an `
` opinion, a condition, an emotion, a disposition, or an endowment-- `
` that is now the moral perspective, here again fear is the mother `
` of morals. It is by the loftiest and strongest instincts, when `
` they break out passionately and carry the individual far above `
` and beyond the average, and the low level of the gregarious `
` conscience, that the self-reliance of the community is destroyed, `
` its belief in itself, its backbone, as it were, breaks, `
` consequently these very instincts will be most branded and `
` defamed. The lofty independent spirituality, the will to stand `
` alone, and even the cogent reason, are felt to be dangers, `
` everything that elevates the individual above the herd, and is a `
` source of fear to the neighbour, is henceforth called EVIL, the `
` tolerant, unassuming, self-adapting, self-equalizing disposition, `
` the MEDIOCRITY of desires, attains to moral distinction and `
` honour. Finally, under very peaceful circumstances, there is `
` always less opportunity and necessity for training the feelings `
` to severity and rigour, and now every form of severity, even in `
` justice, begins to disturb the conscience, a lofty and rigorous `
` nobleness and self-responsibility almost offends, and awakens `
` distrust, "the lamb," and still more "the sheep," wins respect. `
` There is a point of diseased mellowness and effeminacy in the `
` history of society, at which society itself takes the part of him `
` who injures it, the part of the CRIMINAL, and does so, in fact, `
` seriously and honestly. To punish, appears to it to be somehow `
` unfair--it is certain that the idea of "punishment" and "the `
` obligation to punish" are then painful and alarming to people. `
` "Is it not sufficient if the criminal be rendered HARMLESS? Why `
` should we still punish? Punishment itself is terrible!"--with `
` these questions gregarious morality, the morality of fear, draws `
` its ultimate conclusion. If one could at all do away with danger, `
` the cause of fear, one would have done away with this morality at `
` the same time, it would no longer be necessary, it WOULD NOT `
` CONSIDER ITSELF any longer necessary!--Whoever examines the `
` conscience of the present-day European, will always elicit the `
` same imperative from its thousand moral folds and hidden `
` recesses, the imperative of the timidity of the herd "we wish `
` that some time or other there may be NOTHING MORE TO FEAR!" Some `
` time or other--the will and the way THERETO is nowadays called `
` "progress" all over Europe. `
` `
` 202. Let us at once say again what we have already said a hundred `
` times, for people's ears nowadays are unwilling to hear such `
` truths--OUR truths. We know well enough how offensive it sounds `
` when any one plainly, and without metaphor, counts man among the `
` animals, but it will be accounted to us almost a CRIME, that it `
` is precisely in respect to men of "modern ideas" that we have `
` constantly applied the terms "herd," "herd-instincts," and such `
` like expressions. What avail is it? We cannot do otherwise, for `
` it is precisely here that our new insight is. We have found that `
` in all the principal moral judgments, Europe has become `
` unanimous, including likewise the countries where European `
` influence prevails in Europe people evidently KNOW what Socrates `
` thought he did not know, and what the famous serpent of old once `
` promised to teach--they "know" today what is good and evil. It `
` must then sound hard and be distasteful to the ear, when we `
` always insist that that which here thinks it knows, that which `
` here glorifies itself with praise and blame, and calls itself `
` good, is the instinct of the herding human animal, the instinct `
` which has come and is ever coming more and more to the front, to `
` preponderance and supremacy over other instincts, according to `
` the increasing physiological approximation and resemblance of `
` which it is the symptom. MORALITY IN EUROPE AT PRESENT IS `
` HERDING-ANIMAL MORALITY, and therefore, as we understand the `
` matter, only one kind of human morality, beside which, before `
` which, and after which many other moralities, and above all `
` HIGHER moralities, are or should be possible. Against such a `
` "possibility," against such a "should be," however, this morality `
` defends itself with all its strength, it says obstinately and `
` inexorably "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!" `
` Indeed, with the help of a religion which has humoured and `
` flattered the sublimest desires of the herding-animal, things `
` have reached such a point that we always find a more visible `
` expression of this morality even in political and social `
` arrangements: the DEMOCRATIC movement is the inheritance of the `
` Christian movement. That its TEMPO, however, is much too slow and `
` sleepy for the more impatient ones, for those who are sick and `
` distracted by the herding-instinct, is indicated by the `
` increasingly furious howling, and always less disguised teeth- `
` gnashing of the anarchist dogs, who are now roving through the `
` highways of European culture. Apparently in opposition to the `
` peacefully industrious democrats and Revolution-ideologues, and `
` still more so to the awkward philosophasters and fraternity- `
` visionaries who call themselves Socialists and want a "free `
` society," those are really at one with them all in their thorough `
` and instinctive hostility to every form of society other than `
` that of the AUTONOMOUS herd (to the extent even of repudiating `
` the notions "master" and "servant"--ni dieu ni maitre, says a `
` socialist formula); at one in their tenacious opposition to every `
` special claim, every special right and privilege (this means `
` ultimately opposition to EVERY right, for when all are equal, no `
` one needs "rights" any longer); at one in their distrust of `
` punitive justice (as though it were a violation of the weak, `
` unfair to the NECESSARY consequences of all former society); but `
` equally at one in their religion of sympathy, in their compassion `
` for all that feels, lives, and suffers (down to the very animals, `
` up even to "God"--the extravagance of "sympathy for God" belongs `
` to a democratic age); altogether at one in the cry and impatience `
` of their sympathy, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, `
` in their almost feminine incapacity for witnessing it or ALLOWING `
` it; at one in their involuntary beglooming and heart-softening, `
` under the spell of which Europe seems to be threatened with a new `
` Buddhism; at one in their belief in the morality of MUTUAL `
` sympathy, as though it were morality in itself, the climax, the `
` ATTAINED climax of mankind, the sole hope of the future, the `
` consolation of the present, the great discharge from all the `
` obligations of the past; altogether at one in their belief in the `
` community as the DELIVERER, in the herd, and therefore in `
` "themselves." `
` `
` 203. We, who hold a different belief--we, who regard the `
` democratic movement, not only as a degenerating form of political `
` organization, but as equivalent to a degenerating, a waning type `
` of man, as involving his mediocrising and depreciation: where `
` have WE to fix our hopes? In NEW PHILOSOPHERS--there is no other `
` alternative: in minds strong and original enough to initiate `
`