Nietzschian Genealogy of Morals
...ng useful, the aristocrats were not the recipients of the good deeds, but were merely good because they were born into a state of superiority as nobles. Now my question addresses these ‘recipients of the good deeds’. Who were they, and who were the ones acting in goodness to others? My only understanding is of the aristocratic definition of good that was distributed throughout language and over time, where they use it in comparison to those that are different from themselves. Historically, the differentiation between good and bad came from differences in people, whether by class, race or any other variation in lifestyle. Really, what Nietzsche is trying to say is that these different conditions of being (good and bad) were manifested in prejudice and an inability to recognize that it is ok to be different. I can see how that is true in today’s society, or even throughout history. In fact, it’s basically a commonly accepted analysis of the human nature. People tend to look down upon or even condemn those who are different in some way, and while this is not a positive way to treat other people, it is something that often must be worked at to avoid. What Nietzsche wants the reader to understand is that those who are not like that individual are not necessarily “bad” just based on these differences. From here he develops a somewhat cloudy definition of evil, compared to the same good, but this time in the face of religion. This could account for the holy wars of our past (and perhaps even right now, as in the Middle East)… and especially uprisings from within. It s...