Part 2: master morality as the inventor of ethical conduct promoting exclusivity and feeding off of fated superiority on the basis of divine right or generational identity
Nietzsche’s master morality is impacted by this individualistic strength to power. Yet the master is the aristocratic dynasty that seeks to reinforce stereotypical attitudes.
Slave morality creates morality attempting to bridge the true good and evil in order to urge the master into submission. The master is forced to submit and then entertain the fabricated socially constructed ethical chamber. Yet this archetypical attitude maintains that the master is somehow a freely nice guy who is trying to assert himself in the world. The master at times is a successful investor but many a time is a product of privileged assets that place him a top the food chain without doing anything. There are cases of social climbing and doing the work but many other times it’s lending heritage to brand ones destiny. The first master does cultivate his order. Yet his sons do not. They just follow his footsteps. If anything they are solely provided such access for being born without any effort. They can be bums all they want and yet still honoured for their name.
Social structures have existed since Mesopotamia and Egypt. Literacy was a model of extensive nobility. Genetics played a role for the pioneers but once their place was cemented in the upper class their children had the same affordability. The parent could teach the children and keep them noble. Literacy had a major impact on wealth which was also constituted generationally. While certain groups were able to achieve harmony in social division, later groups weren’t able to. Egyptians could, Greeks could not. It wasn’t so much an invention insofar as historical division divided people. Class became a statement of placement in society. Greed and envy plagued societal norms. The caste system in Egypt was not as derisive as it became as monarchs grew power hungry and nobility maintained their leash. Genetics and connections afforded one a better status in ancient society. The more talented the higher up on the totem poll but little instability in between.
The master’s didn’t make a name for themselves they were able to do something others weren’t. For all subsequent generations it was a name or branding that enabled noble presence. A connection of sorts that assisted without having to do much. Many of the master’s had little will to power. It was birth to power. Deserved by divine right or parental honour. By what means is that deserving. Nothing was done except be born. To boss around by virtue of bumming around is truly a horrid case of self actualisation. It is an immature irritating dubious selection. Luck benefited not skill or passion. Nobles flex their might when reality they have no skill. They did little to deserve the place they are. Their grandad may have been a war hero but they are nothing but buffoons feeding off legacy. Tarnishing that legacy but utilising for personal gain with little earnings. Nobles of all generations are a descendent of a true warrior or a lucky victor.
Nobles create their morals but those morals do not concern expressions but concern identity. The noble model is to be amoral and superior. To do whatever one pleases. It is only wrong if the peasant does it. Rules that govern status are those apply generationally. Respect is warranted by virtue of brith. A dubious metric of veracity and yet a historical assessment. Delegitimising all those who aren’t nobles. The master of luck became a noble and then his descendants branded the name to keep their power. They have no virtue nor skill but still positionally at the top. It is in their exclusionary detail. They live in their ivory towers and gated communities. Only certain folk can enter and dialogue with them. There is illegality against measuring up to a noble. They placed normative manners under arrest to maintain their hierarchy. Afraid of losing their might, they are dysfunctional and deeply untalented. The master’s create an ethic to ensure they are kept on top. Making dubious divine rite and generational names to give themselves the edge. Not from this family such a bum. Bums can never be royalty. Stay in your lane peasant. If your father was a peasant then you are one. That is just the way the world works.
Sounds quite phobic. They wish to maintain the hierarchy because they would falter without the ingrained aid. They are the true bums but make excuses like their daddy was a war hero. Yeah but they are not and do not deserve that prestige. They are lucky oddballs who win the jackpot and then run around praising themselves of their accomplishments. They dictate all these rules to ensure that their group remains exclusive. If it were opened to the public others would jump right in. The second generation are nowhere near the first. Taking their riches for granted. The peasant seeks equal opportunity but the noble won’t allow. If they were put in the same course with the same variables the noble would get smoked. His little passion and motivation is a mark of an oppressive noble. Nobles held on to their power lest the peasantry partake in more affairs. Their power depleted and their influence in ruin. The master morality clause is a fearful gesture to keep wealthy folk in charge not out of any goodness but because the impoverished would seek to level the playing field. Nobles are rotten maniacs. Easily destroyed in a fair trial.
It becomes a sentiment of identity politics. Part of the privileged house presents superior resources. The fated existence is a miracle in of itself. Gifted presents for existing while others toil to earn their place in life. A parent wishes to leave a legacy but that does not mean that the children are deserving nor mock others for their uncontrollable circumstances. The only thing true is whether a part of the pack. There is no good or evil as such categories are defined under a categorical imperative. A category given by a higher deity or universe. A world where everyone is held to the same standard. Action is judged not appearance. A MLK like speech of sorts. Content not colour. Ethics is drawn with all under the same code but the imbalance accorded from class difference places people on different levels with varied ethical approaches. In a way there is moral relativism designated by social class. The role of good and evil is to balance all under one class. the universe sets a moral standard and everyone complies. Yet this only operates in a shared experience. Those who do not buy into it reject with their own autonomous ethical framework which may be categorised by the moral absolutism of equalisers. All are held to the same standard of belief.
The nobility do not adhere to this equality or a universal order. While they may believe in a deity they see themselves as superior. Blessed to rule in his place. These gifts are appearance not action. Good and bad are relative to them depending on who is targeted. A noble targeting a royal is bad but targeting a peasant is good. Though the US court system may be a better parallel as guilty for hitting a royal but not guilty for hitting a peasant. The noble is not innocent but there are no repercussions. So it’s not good but not bad. Hitting itself is an action that erases the innocence but accountability is based on the result. To an extent there are moral imperatives in the biological interest. Robbery could be said to be wrong but who is being robbed is debatably a farce. In this case attacking a noble in ancient society versus today. Hitting the noble would have way worse consequences due to the class difference. Death could be afforded while today it may be a fine. Hitting is wrong but the punishment would equal to damage not based on posture. The reverse is also true, while hitting a peasant would not have costed anything now it would. While slaves had quite different ethical barriers, peasants were not owned and were members of the state.
Peasants worked for the nobles. The nobles had land and the peasants worked that land. While there was a rule of law that grounded the society it was far from equal in nature. While law was intended to usher in a cohesive society, many a time it was weaponised to maintain a hefty power over the poor. A classic modern example would be Jim Crowe. Law was by design an orderly form of society that could be manipulated for better or for worse. Ethics imposed in the law were distorted to aid nobles. This by no means meant that nobles could go around murdering peasants but it does mean that there was an imbalance of ethical relation. Hitting an employer today or hitting an employee is the same crime, though other reasons may hinge on the settlement. The law is theoretically equal. The same cannot be said of the old systems. Especially when the differences were less about wealth and more about status. Even in the ancient democracies what clouded their fairness was the classist appearance. Today wealth is the barometer of status which though is not easy to attain is attainable, status cannot.
It is the truth of status that bears resemblance in the seats of authority. Ethics were deranged to the master. For example homosexuality was permissible between class folk but not in between systems. You could fuck straight but you could not fuck up. Christianity dubbed it a sin for all and democracy liberated it for all. This does not mean that the latter groups were perfect but under the law there was equality even if social progress was still falling short. An equal erected foundation was the the floor to the ceiling. Propping up divine rite did not settle with many either which was the purpose of democracy and communism. To do away with some elitist status from brith. Either status was attained or status was irrelevant. Truth and falsehood were the only genuine metrics for the nobles. Good and evil were alter adoptions for everyone. Exceptions remain but good and evil applied to everyone on the same horizontal axis while truth and falsehood operated on a divergent vertical axis. A false noble just as a false prophet was attempting to mount status over others. Only those born on fate’s good side were worthy of reigning. Vertical relation enabled inconsistent responsibility to different individuals. Only those with the same status were worthy of good and others were of evil.
Nietzsche’s master model is inadequate. The aristocrats for most time did not demonstrate any transformation. They pissed in their legacy by maintaining a hierarchy by virtue of birth. Legacy was everything even when the recipient had nothing to show for it. The peasants wished for transformation. Hell, the slave wished for transformation. Yet the master forbade. They designed a system that preyed on the weak. The weak did not choose to be weak they were designated as weak. Mythology cooked up a a lie about superior status. Others bought in to this ensuring the weak could not handle their own. Thus peasant children were unable to fight back at the disadvantage that fared throughout the generations. While it’s possible the first peasants are responsible for their feeble genetics, it is of little accountability to the peasant descendants under the legal hegemony of the nobles. Power was in ideological hold and illiteracy. Peasants didn’t have weapons nor ideas how to accord the revolution. While there may have been a leader that did not necessitate to all. The danger to themselves and their families was too much to bear with uncertain outcomes. Status was accepted and even when pushed back there was little resources to overpower the master. The master held onto the power he received from his father who got it from his father. Lucky suckers.
Slave morality is rather crude in its archetypical format but is insidiously ironic in coercive insecurity. The slave wishes to escape and establish his new egalitarian model while the master wishes to maintain his top-dog status and secure his elitist ranking. The law is the remnant of stature that keeps him a top. It isn’t as if there is some strength competition that realises such superiority. The leader is part of a dynastic legacy. A loser made leader by virtue of his ancestry. The law permits this reality. He is a slave to the system that makes him elite. If the slaves rebelled or infighting overturned the regime, they would be at the bottom of the totem poll. The law is their greatest ally. Their model only works with the law on their side. Their ethical inequity is based in their legal model. Had they been in the jungle they would be eaten alive. They construct a menacing reality for the slave so he does not rebel. Weakening his morale and psychologically depleting his aspirations to maintain control. Manipulation is the victorious strategy. The amount of effort designated for the master to ensure he remains on top is sadly entertained to assist the slow idiot catch up with the slaves. They do not posses anything other than a brand that sells in the legal order that has transpired. The slave is displaced and demoted to forbid his escalation. Weaponising the law to ensure captivity.
Even when the slave burst forth and attempted a new edenic society he became the master. Nobles reemerged in religion and wealth format. The political chain did not aid the bottomless pit. The peasants still suffered under the new nobles. New hierarchies and dynastic metaphysics breeched the grain of egalitarian solidarity. Each ensuing egalitarian hope fostered on identity levels. Status was lost in the fated art but could be earned. Destiny could be rewritten. Yet while this on the surface was incredibly novel, the individualistic amoral market helped a few and harmed more. A society hellbent on rising and falling. Status was achieved by those with resources. Some have climbed up high but many were able to due to status. The founding fathers with the exception of Hamilton’s wit were previously wealthy individuals. Noble crusaders but connectors and upper class-men. Many successes are aided by connections throughout the upper and middle class. Identity is not supposed to play a part but biases are prevalent. Even beyond the status, related or a wealthy friend can educate and provide opportunities not given elsewhere. It is a part of life but status does mean something even if earned. Money over branding has won the day but then again names do mean something. Masters can prop up nobodies to become masters who do that to others. Some can defeat the system but it would be difficult to deny the generational fated existence that still suppresses the poor to rise.
Masters are a product of luck and chance. They then use their prestige gifted from others as a tool to oppress others. They may have even been friends with a poor crowd but now prestigious can never dare walk in those circles. Wealth does buy material and thus presents itself as a superior class with privileges not supplied to others. There are a few trailblazers but the myth of the American dream is that everyone works hard to get where they are. Even many immigrants had a connection or aid that bettered their chances. There are those working hard folk who defied the odds but there are many who given opportunities that place them above the rest and then look down at those who failed as if equal opportunity is a reality. They have schooling so they should succeed but what if their schooling is inferior due to their funding or professional desire to teach in that area. What about their tough communities, an obstacle more affluent did not need to overcome or tutors given handedly to those capable of hiring. There is an imbalance whereby some begin way ahead of the pack by virtue of mooching off the fated existence they were given. Such an archetypical attitude is of the lowest percentile. There are success cases but there are so many variables that invalidate the meta-narrative.
No comments:
Post a Comment