As a native German speaker I believe I can expand upon, and slightly disagree with, your definition.
I suspect that a significant portion of the misunderstanding about slave morality comes from the fact that the german word “Moral” (which is part of the Netzschean-term “Sklavenmoral”) has two possible meanings, depending on context: Morality and morale, and it is the latter which I consider to be the more apt translation in this case.
Nietzsche was really speaking about slave morale.
It is important to understand that slave morality is not an ethical system or a set of values, rather it is a mindset which facilitates by psychological mechanism the adoption of certain values and moral systems.
To be more concrete, it is a mindset that Nietzsche suspects is common among the downtrodden, raped, unlucky, unworthy, pathethic, and unfit.
Such people, according to Nietzsche, value kindness, “goodness of the heart”, humility, patience, softness, and other such things, and tend to be suspicious of power, greatness, risk, boldness, ruthlessness, etc.
To the slave, the warmhearted motherly figure who cares about lost puppies is a perfect example of what a good person is like—in sharp contrast to an entrepeneurial, risk-taking type of person who wants to colonize the universe or create a great empire or whatever.
To the slave, that which causes fear is evil—to the master, inspiring fear (or, rather, awe) is an almost necessary attribute of something great, worthy, good.
So, returning to your definition: Slave morality gives rise to the idea that he who is a good boy and cleans his room deserves a cookie. That, I would agree, is a significant consequence of slave morality, but it is not its definition.
It’s funny how in the OP I agree with master morality and in your take I agree with slave morality. Maybe I value kindness because I don’t think anybody is obligated to be kind?
Anyways, good job confusing the matter further, you two.
This is amazing to me, frankly. Thank you for your comment.
I mean, good bless you, but I can’t view slave morality as I’ve described it as anything other than pathetic. I also value kindness, but, for instance, I admire people like Elon Musk infinitely more than the kind, soft person who’s life will ultimately be close to meaningless, and I’d still admire him if he was much crueller and sadistic than he actually is.
We are at the brink of changing the course of the universe forever, even thinking about the downtrodden too much feels outright immoral to me at this point.
As a native German speaker I believe I can expand upon, and slightly disagree with, your definition.
I suspect that a significant portion of the misunderstanding about slave morality comes from the fact that the german word “Moral” (which is part of the Netzschean-term “Sklavenmoral”) has two possible meanings, depending on context: Morality and morale, and it is the latter which I consider to be the more apt translation in this case.
Nietzsche was really speaking about slave morale. It is important to understand that slave morality is not an ethical system or a set of values, rather it is a mindset which facilitates by psychological mechanism the adoption of certain values and moral systems.
To be more concrete, it is a mindset that Nietzsche suspects is common among the downtrodden, raped, unlucky, unworthy, pathethic, and unfit.
Such people, according to Nietzsche, value kindness, “goodness of the heart”, humility, patience, softness, and other such things, and tend to be suspicious of power, greatness, risk, boldness, ruthlessness, etc.
To the slave, the warmhearted motherly figure who cares about lost puppies is a perfect example of what a good person is like—in sharp contrast to an entrepeneurial, risk-taking type of person who wants to colonize the universe or create a great empire or whatever.
To the slave, that which causes fear is evil—to the master, inspiring fear (or, rather, awe) is an almost necessary attribute of something great, worthy, good.
So, returning to your definition: Slave morality gives rise to the idea that he who is a good boy and cleans his room deserves a cookie. That, I would agree, is a significant consequence of slave morality, but it is not its definition.
It’s funny how in the OP I agree with master morality and in your take I agree with slave morality. Maybe I value kindness because I don’t think anybody is obligated to be kind?
Anyways, good job confusing the matter further, you two.
At your service!
This is amazing to me, frankly. Thank you for your comment. I mean, good bless you, but I can’t view slave morality as I’ve described it as anything other than pathetic. I also value kindness, but, for instance, I admire people like Elon Musk infinitely more than the kind, soft person who’s life will ultimately be close to meaningless, and I’d still admire him if he was much crueller and sadistic than he actually is.
We are at the brink of changing the course of the universe forever, even thinking about the downtrodden too much feels outright immoral to me at this point.