Stephen Rosebrook

In Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche focuses societys power dynamic and how it defines morality. Nietzsche describes a master/slave dynamic, where the master creates values that support his own status as the master. This concept of doing something only for oneself carries over into the concept of selfish charity; he proposes that good actions should only be done because they enhance the masters power over the slave. The master uses morality as a tool to enfeeble the slaves and reinforces his own power by assent that God is dead. His concept of the relation between the death of God and morality differs on multiple accounts from the modern philosopher, Steven M. Cahn. In God and Morality, Cahn attempts to fit a moderate view of God with a progressive view of morality. Cahn works from the presumption that God does exist and all his actions are moral, but does not precede or define morality. Cahn later makes the claim that a person does moral actions because they are good and not out of any sense of religious fear. To tie it all together, he explains that the existence of God or ones belief in God does not imply morality one way or another. Each author attempts to explain the relationship between God (or in Nietzsches case, religion) and morality, and its true nature and origin. Despite Cahns seemingly thorough argument he lowers the threshold of a sound argument by only arguing a narrow and not very controversial viewpoint. Nietzsche on the other hand takes a much more controversial idea and develops it further than where Cahn takes his. Early in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche explains that in a master/slave dynamic, an effective master creates values that either strengthen his own position or enfeeble the slaves, or both. Although Nietzsche has already declared God dead at this point, a comparison can be made between his master figure and the role of God. He describes the master as not requiring any

personal vindication of his actions, he passes judgment and is above scrutiny, he is a creator of values. This concept of a single entity above reproach or oversight is similar to the Judeo-Christian God. Despite Nietzsches lack of faith, he inadvertently weighs in on the debate as to whether God creates morality or God works within morality. If one were to equate the concept of a master to the concept of God, it would seem Nietzsche is in the God creates morality camp. Nietzsche argues that might makes right. This is at odds with Cahns views on God and his role in morality. Shortly after Nietzsche describes the previous point, he goes into the reasons for a moral action. His contends that the primary reason should be self-glorification or to show how much power he truly wields. The masters charity is only for his own good, The noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not or scarcely out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the superabundance of power. Nietzsches concept of charity is in stark contrast to most other philosophers. While many claim that the intent behind an action cannot be self-serving, Nietzsche says that it must be. He also makes an interesting point about who should and should not undertake a noble action. Only those who have so much power that it overflows within them can afford to be noble to those below them. Nietzsches views on the origin of morality also differ from many other philosophers. Using the allegory of the mad man, Nietzsche claims that God is dead and humanity has killed him. The next logical step is that the morals the church espouses are false, as they cant possibly claim to know Gods will if he is dead. The only reason that the church promotes morality is to enfeeble and enslave. In the final section of Beyond Good and Evil he states, Christianity is the religion of pity. Pity opposes the noble passions which heighten our vitality. It has a depressing effect, depriving us of our strength. Nietzsche has previously said that a charitable or noble action out of ones own self interest is acceptable, but here he states that if it stems from a need for validation or out pity for

another it is inherently weak. His claim that Christianity is the religion of pity supports the idea that Christianity seeks to overthrow the masters from their position of power. Even though he disdains the very notion of pity, he is not against the masters using it to remain in power. If the masters can engender a feeling of pity amongst the slaves he has further enfeebled them and added to his own power through it. Morality is merely a tool that the masters use to enhance their own power, but it can also be a tool used by the church against the masters. While the church is deceptive and uses subterfuge in its acquisition of power, the masters are bold and hard hearted when they take power. Like Nietzsche, Steven M. Cahn also weighs in on the God/values debate. Cahn differs from Nietzsche by suggesting that Gods commands are moral because he follows morality. He sums his argument up by saying, The lesson here is that might does not make right, even if the might is the infinite might of God. Cahns beliefs on the issue are at total odds with Nietzsches. Where Nietzsche would say that those with power are the creators of values, Cahn says that values are already in place, and Gods commands correspond with, but do not influence, morality. Cahn points out that if one were to believe the opposite, that Gods commands are right because he commands them, then actions like murder, adultery, and stealing would be right if he commanded them. By taking the opposing view to the extreme, Cahn points out flaws that are not immediately evident upon first examination. As an addendum to the previous point, Cahn also explains why one ought to act morally. His views vary significantly from Nietzsches. Cahn states, To act morally is not to act out of fear of punishment; it is not to act as one is commanded to act. Rather it is to act as one ought to act, and how one ought to act is not dependent on anyones power, even if the power be divine. Nietzsche stated that slaves should act morally because it is their master (with more power) who makes the morals. Cahn, on the other hand, goes in the opposite direction by saying that an entitys power

makes no difference on the morality of an action. Fear of reprisal is not a valid reason for acting morally; the only circumstance under which one can act morally is because they should, independent of all other factors. No one can act morally under compulsion to do so, and there can be now power relationship. Cahns conclusive point, on whether the existence or belief in God indicates morality one way or another, is a combination of all his other previous ones. By utilizing the first point, that morality comes before God, Cahn dismisses claims that God determines morality while at the same time introducing the concept that God works in accordance with morality. The second point, that the morality of an action is independent from any power structure, reinforces the previous idea that God is not part of the morality equation. He explains his conclusion, In short, believing in the existence of God does not by itself imply any specific moral principles, and knowing Gods will does not provide any justification for morality. To support this claim he refers to examples of atheists who acted very morally (Buddha) and devout believers who acted very immorally (Torquemada). Gods existence one way or another is not a reliable or accurate indicator of the morality of an action. Cahn states that God gave humans the capacity for murder, yet we consider it to be immoral. Cahn and Nietzsche are both of the opinion that God has nothing to do with morality. In Nietzsches case it is because God is dead and morality is a tool the church uses, while Cahn believes God exists, but doesnt favor morality one way or another. Each author took a different path to reach conclusions that are different, but not opposite. Beyond Good and Evil seems to have the strongest case on morality between the two texts. While the comparison is a little unfair because God and Morality is significantly shorter, Nietzsche represents a more realistic view of morality and the distribution of power in the world. His observations about the master/slave power dynamic are well supported by concepts like a creator

of values. He also backs his claims up with historical examples of cultures that allowed themselves to fall prey to morality and pity, at which point they were taken over by those with more ambition. Good examples on both sides of his beliefs are North Korea and Iran. North Korea allowed itself to be taken over by a despotic dictator, Kim Il Sung had a very strong will to power which allowed him to take absolute control. The people of North Korea today are in a complete slave position, unable to take any power back. Iran is exactly what Nietzsche warns about the church. When the Shah fell, the Ayatollah took power by saying it was the will of God. The oppressed people of Iran wanted to believe him, and wanted a strong leader, so they supported him. After he gained power he never gave it up again. The concept of power being within grasp should one choose to take it is also a very appealing idea, so it isnt hard to get behind it. The way he lays his arguments out also make it easy for the reader to apply Nietzsches theories to present day situations, which seems to confirm them. A point that could have been more explored was the concept of the pathos of distance. Nietzsches belief that one way the masters maintain their power is by separating themselves from the slaves as much as possible, so that the slaves will always feel inferior to the masters. Although his bias against the Christian church is obvious, for the most part he doesnt let it get in the way of a logical argument. Despite the dark attitude he takes, it is refreshing to read from an author who takes a realistic approach to life. Nietzsche acknowledges that for there to be people at the top, there must also be people at the bottom. Nietzsche points out that there will always be those who are weak-willed, unintelligent, and easily manipulated. There will also always be aggressive, barbaric, and coldhearted people who will not hesitate to take advantage of the others. While the ethics of Nietzsches society are questionable, they are far more applicable than Cahns idealistic view of God and morality. Cahn is attempting to reconcile the belief in God with the belief in morality, and does a

fine job at it, but just isnt in the same league as Nietzsche. Cahn is looking at a very specific idea, that the belief or existence of God does not prove morality one way or another, and in that he does an admirable job. However, Nietzsche is looking at a much larger issue, the power structure and its distribution in society. Where Cahn makes everything copacetic and fit nicely, Nietzsche leaves preconceived notions in shambles. Its easy to agree with Cahn and be on your way, but after reading Nietzsche its hard to ignore his radical concepts.