Nietzsche- Good V. Evil Essay Example for Free

Nietzsche- Good V. Evil Essay Friederich Nietzsche’s first essay in his work â€Å"On the Genealogy of Morals† is a piece titled, â€Å"Good and Evil, Good and Bad. † The essay seeks to trace the origin of morals, specifically the distinction made between good and bad and the subjective difference separating evil and bad. He elaborates that in the modern world the way we define good and bad is never questioned since we assume those definitions were reasonably created. Over time, Nietzsche argues, we lost sight of the origin of these words, pinpointing this moment as â€Å"when aristocratic value judgments declined† (Nietzsche 26). Nietzsche holds the ruling aristocratic class responsible for originally defining good and bad, while the common lower class followed with their own definition of good and its antithesis, evil. The focus of Nietzsche’s essay is the search to define good, bad, and evil, and the response of the weak class to classifications of good and bad made by the powerful class. It is the resentment or as he calls the ressentiment of the commoners or the â€Å"slaves† to the noble class that creates the opposing idea of what constitutes good and what is bad or evil. The original definition of good given by the powerful aristocratic class caused resentment among the lower classes. This weaker lower class turned the tables, claiming the actions of the nobles were not simply bad, a clear turn from good, but evil, and instead the inaction and weakness inherent in the lower classes was in fact good. Nietzsche argues that the commoner’s resentment of the powerful is more aggressive than the aristocratic contempt for the weak. This deep resentment further enslaves the weak into a downcast role since the weak only define their goodness by the evil nature of the powerful. The powerful noble class maintains their definition of good without going as far to say that the weak are evil; instead they are pitiable. The weak are unable to challenge the strong and therefore define their position as good despite their inaction, while the strong and powerful noble class is free to live in a world of activity void of constant comparisons to their counter part, the weak. Nietzsche believes time has distanced and blinded man from the original conceptions of morality that are good and bad. The modern conceptions of good and bad come from a practical and believable story where â€Å"one approved unegoistic actions and called them good from the point of view of those to whom they were done, that is to say, those to whom they were useful†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Nietzsche 25). Nietzsche continues that â€Å"†¦later one forgot how this approval originated and, simply because unegoistic actions were always habitually praised as good, one also felt them to be good- as if they were something good in themselves† (Nietzsche 25). This is how we define good in the modern day, Nietzsche says, because once the true origin of good was ditched along the path of history, man invented a definition that seemed appropriate. He continues stating, â€Å" The judgment ‘good’ did not originate with those to whom ‘goodness’ was shown! Rather it was ‘the good’ themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common and plebeian† (Nietzsche 25). The definitions of good and bad were constructed by the noble class who looked to themselves for examples of goodness and then invented a casual explanation of bad as only a contrasting necessity. Nietzsche strengthens his argument that the moral values of good and bad were defined by the noble class in a discussion of the origin of the words good and bad in multiple languages. He asks the question, â€Å"What was the real etymological significance of the designations of ‘good’ coined in the various languages? I found they all led back to the same conceptual transformation- that everywhere ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the social sense, is the basic concept from which good†¦ necessarily developed† (Nietzsche 27-28). Nietzsche wishes to firmly establish that the powerful class elucidated original morality. The action to establish what is good and bad by the noble class is followed by a refutation of these establishments by the weaker class. Nietzsche affirms that it was specifically the Jews, the priestly people of the earth, who were the first to flip the roles of good and bad in the debate of what constitutes moral behavior. The priest and the noble aristocrat are in opposition to each other. Nietzsche thought this obvious and says, â€Å"One will have divided already how easily the priestly mode of valuation can branch off from the knightly-aristocratic and then develop into its opposite; this is particularly likely when the priestly caste and the warrior class are in jealous opposition to one another and are unwilling to come to terms† (Nietzsche 33). It is important to understand why Nietzsche focuses on the Jews in particular for being the people who reinvent the terms of morality. Nietzsche alludes to the history of the Jews as repressed people who are taken advantage of by the powerful and cruel warrior class of aristocrats. It is due to this history that â€Å"†¦the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies’ values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge† (Nietzsche 33-34). This section of Nietzsche’s first essay is directed at examining the context in which the value of good was redefined, shedding light on why the revaluation of morals by the weak is insufficient and lacking conviction and merit. The trend was begun by the Jews and soon turned to the more general â€Å"slave revolt in morality† (Nietzsche 34). The slave can be the priest, the peasant, simply the overall commoner who is weak and defined by impotence. The Jews though, were the first to â€Å"invert the aristocratic value-equation†¦ saying ‘the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious†¦ and you, the powerful, noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned† (Nietzsche 34)! The definition of good has been transformed to support the inaction and inferiority of the weak. Nietzsche does not value this change in moral standards not because he believes they are inherently wrong, but by the process in which they were constructed. The man of resentment, to which we may now refer to in place of the Jew, the priest, the commoner, or the weak, has positioned himself to be seen as good because the powerful aristocratic class is evil, cruel, and damned. This is where the problem lies and where it is seen that the argument of goodness coming from the man of resentment, although plausible and not without merit, is superficially constructed and gives no real convincing advantage to the morality of the weak. This slave morality that is created by the man of resentment exists only from vengeance of the external idea of good created by the class of nobles that is also external to the weak and resentful. Herein lies the problem. While the powerful noble class has found what they consider good by looking in on themselves, out of their action and their values, the men of resentment on the contrary have only conjured a lucid definition of good by their blind opposition to the conceived good of the nobles. Nietzsche says, â€Å"The inversion of the value-positing eye- this need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself- is of the essence of ressentiment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all- its action is fundamentally reaction† (Nietzsche 36-37). The need for an opposing view of what is moral and good is needed for the man of resentment to redefine what he thinks is moral and good, yet Nietzsche argues that the slave morality does not consist of its own definition; it simply labels what was good as evil and assumes this will be a convincing argument for the goodness of those who can define the evil powerful class. The constant comparison the men of resentment make of themselves to the powerful is a fault since the slave morality these men wish to prove is void of real tangible evidence of good and can only define goodness in contrast to the evil of the powerful. These powerful are given the upper hand because of the way they define their goodness. Whereas the men of resentment form their slave morality by the external examination of the powerful, â€Å"The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, its seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly- its negative concept ‘low,’ ‘common,’ ‘bad’ is only a subsequently-invented pale, contrasting image in relation to its positive basic concept† (Nietzsche 37). The difference is in the contempt the powerful have for the weak as opposed to the resentment the weak have for the powerful. The contempt of the weak is weak itself, where it is only a product of the original definition of good. Yet the resentment of the weak is a force that defines them instead of seeing this resentment as only valuable to define what is evil or bad after a self-created concept of good is in place. The man of resentment therefore places value in his opposition to evil. While the evil of the powerful noble class manifests itself in actions of cruelty at times, the powerful are also more capable of better things, as they â€Å"†¦felt themselves to be ‘happy’; they did not have to establish their happiness artificially by examining their enemies, or to persuade themselves, deceive themselves, that they were happy† (Nietzsche 38). The man of resentment on the contrary is burdened by his constant comparison to the evil, continuously having to convince himself that he is indeed good instead of just living that way. The man of resentment is in an unfavorable and unfortunate disadvantage. His opposition to the powerful noble always defines his livelihood and happiness, whereas the noble lives a life more free, void of constant comparison. The man of resentment defines the moral values of good and evil out of vengeance and in contrast to the self-established morality of the powerful aristocratic class. These men of resentment, who Nietzsche argues are naturally weak, define goodness not by looking to themselves but by examining the external world of the powerful, which they perceive as evil. The weak superficially construct strength and power from their inferior position by defining good as their humble and peaceful attitude, a substitution for their natural weakness and inability to challenge the strength of the powerful noble class. These men of weakness have historically succeeded in defining their inferiority as good by demonizing the powerful, but this self-deception constrains the livelihood of the weak as they are weighed down by their constant resentment of the powerful that only hold indifferent contempt for the weak. The weak are only redefining the form of slavery that is weakness with a self-deceptive concept of good.

Essay --

Kate Thoma Position Paper In John Caputo’s book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct? Caputo discusses his views on the world’s actions and whether or not they are reflective of what Jesus wanted. Caputo believes that society is not just falling short of what Jesus wanted but in many cases failing entirely to follow Jesus’ orders. Caputo discusses several important issues including war and abortion. However, Caputo concludes that everyone, including devout Christians, need to realize the world is not living according to the teachings of Jesus. An important issue that Caputo discusses is wars. To be more accurate, the idea of ‘just wars.’ In Caputo’s opinion Jesus would hate that wars are happening throughout the world and find the idea of a ‘just war’ as ludicrous. In fact, it is explained that the concept of a ‘just war’ was not even created until four centuries after the death of Jesus in order for Christians to maintain power over Rome. As Caputo puts it, â€Å"The only just war is the war against war† (Caputo pg#). Additionally, Caputo keeps mentioning this idea of a ‘just war’ being justified as a lesser evil, but that does not make it just, so to speak. Caputo argues that if Jesus were to be considered a political thinker then Jesus would be a pacifist, as depicted in the New Testament. This means that under no circumstances would war be considered as an option to Jesus. Rather, every conflict would be settled through peaceful negotiations. Caputo goe s even further explaining that if Jesus held political power in today’s day and age, then the U.S. Department of Defense’s budget would be nonexistent because there would be no need to fund their cause. However, the Christian Right continues to support the U.S. in going to war. Furthermo... ... against making abortion illegal. The Christian Right are mostly opposed to increasing taxation, however if abortion were to be made illegal, then the government would need to get the money to pay for these children somehow. I also found it interesting that the reason Catholics restrict the use of birth control is due to a threat to the population that does not even exist anymore. It makes no sense for the Catholic Church to continue ruling out the use of contraception, especially because Jesus never even talked of this issue. However, that is the issue. Jesus never talked about the issue of abortion either. I must agree with Caputo though, Jesus would not be preaching against abortions but rather taking in both perspectives and seeing the difficulty in the situation. Just like Caputo I find that much of society is not living by the rules Jesus told us to live by.

Inherit the Wind Essay

Inherit the Wind â€Å"Here in Hillsboro we are fighting the fight of the Faithful through-out the world! † (53) Inherit the Wind is the epic legal drama, written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, of a controversial subject: creationism versus Darwinism. Hillsboro is extremely determined to defend creationism. Though fictional, Inherit the Wind is based on the Scopes Trial, which occurred in July of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee.The play was published in 1957, a period of time where people, especially those of Hillsboro, the small town in which the play is set, were only allowed to teach the theory of creationism; teaching evolution was against the law. The people of the town were extremely religious. To not believe in the bible or attend church would result in being shunned by Hillsboro. In Inherit the Wind, the attitude of Hillsboro subtly changes throughout the course of the trial of the young schoolteacher who purposely broke the law.The town reflects the fiercely religiou s and biased views collectively shared by its people, such that it becomes an important character in itself. The changes in the town’s attitude are small, evident by certain individuals within the town learning to open their minds and accept the theory of evolution. Before the trial of Bert Cates, the attitude of the town is reflected by its behavior towards Bert Cates, Henry Drummond, and Matthew Harrison Brady. Bert Cates is a schoolteacher who was imprisoned for teaching evolution to his class, something Hillsboro considers to be very wrong.Rachel Brown is the daughter of the Reverend, and though she tries to defy her father and his views, even she sides with Hillsboro and does not understand â€Å"why [he] can’t be on the right side of things† (8). The â€Å"right side† is Hillsboro’s side; the only â€Å"right† answer is in the bible. Because Hillsboro is so close-minded, it refuses to accept any other theories or opinions. It wants Cat es to be found guilty. It considers him a criminal for what he did; therefore, the bias against him is clear before the trial even begins.In turn, Hillsboro is equally unhappy with the defense attorney, Henry Drummond. Drummond is a renowned lawyer who is described as â€Å"the most agile legal mind of the Twentieth Century† (22). He has the ability to win the case, something Hillsboro assumed would not to be done. Reverend Brown calls him the â€Å"Devil† (25) because â€Å"[one] looks into his face, and [wonders] why God made such a man† (25). Given this description, Hillsboro assumes it to be true and treats him as though he is evil. Hillsboro thinks Drummond does not believe in God because he has won cases where the defendants were clearly guilty.Hillsboro knows that Drummond is an excellent lawyer, and with him defending Cates, the trial could have a remarkably different result from what Hillsboro was expecting. By calling him the â€Å"Devil†, Hills boro is able to turn its people against Drummond. However, the attitude Hillsboro displays towards Matthew Harrison Brady is completely opposite. The famous lawyer is the lead prosecutor for the trial of Bert Cates. Hillsboro worships Brady; he is devoted to the bible, believing â€Å"all the answers to those questions are in the Bible† (34) and that evolution is nonsense.Hillsboro is overjoyed, and rather star struck to have him in town. All of Hillsboro gathers to welcome Brady with a feast and frequently sings, â€Å"It is good enough for Brady† (17). The difference with which Hillsboro treats Brady compared to Cates and Drummond is colossal. Everyone is completely taken in by his charm and presentation; each hang on every word he says. Before the trial begins, Brady already has Hillsboro on his side. With the negative attitude Hillsboro displays before the trial, how could Bert Cates stand a chance against their bias and closed minds?Throughout the trial of Bert Ca tes, the behavior and bias Hillsboro had previously displayed, remains, and escalates, to the point where even Brady feels uncomfortable. The meaning of religion to Hillsboro is reflected by its people, shown by the answers and opinions given by the potential jurors. The members of the jury were selected by Drummond and Brady, both of whom had to agree upon the individual in order for them to serve as a juror. Brady does not care whether it is a fair trial; he only wants to win.This could be almost guaranteed as the jurors are all members of Hillsboro and many seem to â€Å"believe in the Holy Word of God †¦ and Matthew Harrison Brady† (36). It is impossible to have a fair trial for Bert Cates when the jury members are all chosen from Hillsboro, thus it is clear they do not want Cates to stand a chance. A message from Reverend Brown to Hillsboro further illustrates this. At the end of the first day of the trial, the Judge announces â€Å"there will be a prayer-meeting t onight on the courthouse lawn, to pray for justice and guidance†(42), a message Reverend Brown asks him to relay.The judge seems to see nothing wrong with doing so, demonstrated by his reaction to Drummond’s objections. Clearly the judge does not care about the fairness of Cates’ trial, as he openly announced a meeting to pray for a guilty verdict. There were no evolutionist meetings being held, as Drummond pointed out. The only option Hillsboro gives is to believe in the bible. The degree of the importance of religion to Hillsboro is revealed during the prayer meeting. Reverend Brown becomes very passionate and eventually deranged when telling Hillsboro how God supposedly created the world in seven days.Hillsboro, in turn, reacts fervently, screaming and roaring â€Å"Hosannah! Bless the Lord who created us! † (57) And â€Å"Amen, amen! † (57). The Reverend goes on further to directly talk about Cates, asking Hillsboro â€Å"Do we call down hellfi re on the man who has sinned against the Word† (59), which Hillsboro agrees with, encouraging the Reverend to continue in his rant, and ask God to have Cates’ soul â€Å"writhe in anguish and damnation† (59). It is at this point in time that Brady realizes the extent Hillsboro is willing to take religion.Hillsboro would have Cates sent to Hell and eternally damned because he chose to teach evolution. As much as Brady is a religious man, even he believes Hillsboro has gone too far. The trial of Bert Cates has illuminated how religious Hillsboro truly is and how the opinion of a few people can impact an entire town. After the trial of Bert Cates, there is a small, but nevertheless definite, shift in attitude of Hillsboro, demonstrated by the outcome of the trial and individual character changes.Bert Cates is the first person in Hillsboro to dare oppose the law against evolution; this is the first step in bringing about the change. Although his actions are technical ly wrong, Cates believes he did the right thing and refuses to stand down. Even the woman he loves, Rachel Brown, begs him to â€Å"tell ‘em it was all a joke† (7), and though he wavers, he sees the trial through to the end. Cates opens the door to a different side, one which most of Hillsboro has never even considered, at least not openly.Though Hillsboro may not accept or like evolution, the town was forced to contemplate the idea of it because of the trial. Rachel Brown is the Reverend’s daughter, and throughout the play, struggles to stand up to her father; the conclusion of Cates’s trial allows her to find the courage to finally do so. Rachel is terrified to show her support of Cates for fear of her father. Reverend Brown answers Brady’s question â€Å"My daughter will be pleased to answer any questions about Bert Cates† (22).Before the trial begins, Rachel refuses to stand up for herself or answer for herself. She begins to oppose her f ather, when she jumps on stage and implores her father â€Å"[not to] pray to destroy Bert! † (59), during the prayer meeting, something she could not have done at the beginning of the play. She has had creationism enforced upon her for her whole life, yet Cates’s trial opens her mind to evolution, when Drummond questions Brady on how the World could possibly have been created in Seven days. The trial also gives her the strength to stand up to her father.A change in the attitude of one person can have a significant impact on the people around him, especially in a town as small as Hillsboro. Rachel cannot have been the only person in Hillsboro to doubt creationism after the trial; however, if she were, her new outlook would surely inspire those surrounding her. The result of the trial plays a key role in the change of Hillsboro’s attitude. Although the jury finds Cates guilty, his punishment is only a five hundred dollar fine. This case turned into something much bigger than just a small town case; the entire state was waiting with baited breath to hear the results.Yet after all the fuss and trouble that was made about this case, to fine Cates only five hundred dollars is astounding, especially considering Hillsboro wanted to have Cates’s soul â€Å"writhe in anguish and damnation† (59). The jury is made up of biased people who were completely close-minded to begin with, but Drummond is able to convince Hillsboro to slightly open its mind, which is an incredible accomplishment. Although Cates technically lost the trial, it should be considered a victory. In Inherit the Wind, the attitude of Hillsboro subtly changes throughout the course of the trial of the young schoolteacher who purposely broke the law.The town reflects the fiercely religious and biased views collectively shared by its people, such that it becomes an important character in itself. The changes in the town’s attitude are small, evident by certain individ uals within the town. The people of Hillsboro are extraordinarily similar. They all think, feel, and act the same way. There are few individuals who stand out in the town, as most are from the same cookie-cutter mold. Because the people are so alike, they are able to blend into one character that represents all of them.As a result, the town becomes a vital character to the story. Hillsboro is willing to send a schoolteacher to jail for voicing his opinions, because he goes against what the town collectively believes to be â€Å"right†. Through the course of the play, we are given insight into how much religion can mean not only to one person, but an entire town, and the lengths a town is willing to go to prevent change. Setting this play in a different town, one without the same religious beliefs, would alter the story immensely; in fact, the entire trial may not have occurred.

Demand For New Government Maiden Budget And Improve...

Expectations to the New Government A to Z *Dr.A.Jayakumar **K.Sumathi Abstract This paper discus on expectation for new government maiden budget and improve governance and fiscal consolidation. This study examine that the current status of the economic development in India. The sector plays a vital role in economic development of the country. It attempts to outline the expectation to the sectors. This paper focus on present budget position and company’s impact are analyzed. Authors suggest that establishment of the sector in India. *Professor of Commerce, Periyar University, Salem -11 **Ph.D Research Scholar, Department of Commerce,Periyar University, Salem-11,email: sumathia148@gmail.com Expectations to the New†¦show more content†¦The new Expectations are high and the government will present an adjustment to the former government s budget implement its own strategy. If the government announces any definite measures which would either lead to broadening of the tax base or increase in tax compliance, a modest increase in revenue cannot be rule out. However, development in tax buoyancy could only result from bringing about structural changes in the tax structure such as implementation of GST and DTC. We also expect the government to take a strong stance on some of the impending tax-related disputes relating to retrospective changes to tax laws, transfer pricing laws and General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR). We would also expect the government to give a clear outline of its intentions on disinvestment which would also help in assessing the resources available for its expenditure. At the rate of 15% investment allowances to the manufacturing companies. New plant investment excess rate of Rs.0.25billion in any year and machinery upto 2016-17 is expected to provide manufacturing companies. Table No: 1 Market expectations Fical Defict Target 4.1% GDP February 2014 Retained Budget 2014-15 Net Revenue Growth 20% 2014-15 Provisional Data for 2013-201 Mild Improvement in Economic Growth 5.0-5.5% 2014-15from the Sub 5% levels in 2012 - 14 The new government