The The third and final section deals with the ethical consequences of Nobility as arbiter of moral values. In order to see what the consequences are of nobility it is important to first see differences between Platonic/Christian culture and nobility, and give the characteristics of noble free spirit.
The idea of the noble / free spirit is an inversion of values from those of the Platonic/Christian culture, it’s therefore necessary to look at the main characteristics of this culture in order to see what the free spirit would be.
This is the Platonic/Christian culture, according to Nietzsche. It is about ‘happiness’ as in the state of mind brought about by the false security we have in God or the sciences to have the answer to life. It is a culture where it is possible to commit altruistic actions and there is equality among all people. The culture tries to be tranquil to ensure peace, and there is pity and compassion. It concentrates on the well-being of the ‘soul’ and there is extirpation/purgation of human instincts for the better of society. And finally there is social utility. All of which, Nietzsche feels, results in a weak society that is detrimental to the ‘higher type’ - the noble.
The inversion of values for the noble / free spirit follow as such: ‘happiness’ is replaced with suffering, through suffering it is felt we are made stronger. Actions are committed in self-interest but because the actions of the noble should benefit the whole of man-kind there is altruism by proxy. Equality is replaced by a hierarchy system, “that what is right for one cannot by any means therefore be right for another, that the demand for one morality for all is detrimental to precisely the higher men, in short that there exists an order of rank between man and man, consequently also between morality and morality” [228]; he has two ranks: the master (free spirit / noble) morality and the slave (‘the herd’) morality. Danger is seen as the reversal of tranquillity, like suffering it is there to make us stronger. Pity and compassion are for the week, instead the noble is indifferent to such feelings towards offers; treating people as only a means to an end. The concentration shifts from the well being of the ‘soul’ to the well being of the ‘body;’ instincts are there to be satisfied and enjoyed, not to be repressed as this is seen to be ‘unhealthy.’ And finally social utility is swapped with anti-egalitarianism (anti-equality).
There area five main characteristics of a noble. The first being that the higher type is solitary and treats people as a mean to an end, “he shall be the greatest who can be the most solitary” [Ch.212] which seems quite contradictory to an earlier assertion that the solitude encouraged by religion was in fact ‘unhealthy’ because it was neurotic. And deal with others only instrumentally, “a human being who strives for something great regards everybody he meets on his way either as a means or as a delay and hindrance” [Ch. 273].
Secondly that the higher type seeks burdens and responsibilities as he is driven by a project, “the higher man, higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility” [Ch. 212], to transform the world into his own image – “creates the world in its (the noble) own image, it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power” [Ch. 9].
Thirdly, the higher type is a healthy and resilient person; the idea of being healthy stems from what he sees as “religious neurosis” [Ch. 47], where your desires are suppressed as a sacrifice to God – as in the moral era. Thus the noble should be part of the forth coming era of the extra-moral.
Fourthly is that the noble wills the eternal return, the affirmation of life; to will the eternal return is to be willing to relive every action you have ever made over and over again for eternity, “as it was and is for all eternity” [Ch. 56].
And finally the noble should have love for one’s self – “the noble soul has reverence for itself” [Ch. 287]. Theses characteristics, Nietzsche feels, are something embedded in the likes of Beethoven, Goethe and Cesare Borgia.
The four main outcomes of Nobility which are present in the Western society of to day are: political application, modern art, ethical and theories of the social contract (contractarianism).
The political implications of nobility have probably been made most famous by Hitler and the Nazi party. Although the works of Nietzsche were edited by his sister after his death in 1900 to fall in line with the extreme right wing party’s ideology here are still a lot of similarities between their mandate and his philosophy in Beyond Good & Evil. Just as Nietzsche blamed the Jews for the “inversion of values” from which the slave morality was born – “with them begins the slave revolt in moral” [Ch.196]; so too did the Nazis blame the Jews for the hardship Germany was facing during the 1920’s (Nietzsche view being imaginative to say the least, and the Nazis as just not true). And just as Nietzsche felt strongly that that there was a superior, elite race of humans, the Noble / Free Spirit, who would create the world in their own image; so too did Hitler with his belief in the Aryan race. Other similarities that can be drawn to attention; the belief in anti-equality, races not to be mixed to prevent weakening them (which, with genetic science, is know not to be the case) and religion was seen as a poison to society by both. But to call Nietzsche right-wing would be unfair and untrue, he was in fact an anti-nationalist and his views on authority, church, science, morality and other institutions he felt to be part of the bourgeois class can be considered to be part of the left wing ideology. He would say that he was neither on the side left nor right, as the problems of society couldn’t be fixed by a single political structure – to do so would be dogmatic.
His impact of modernism in art has stemmed the way for dada, expressionism and futurism.
His effect on ethical thinking can clearly be seen in existentialism. Jean-Paul Sartre, a key existentialist, also contradicts Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” with the argument that existence precedes essence – that we are geworfenheit (Heidegger’s idea of being thrown into existence before being aware of ourselves as distinct beings). But from here he goes onto state the opposite of Nietzsche, that we do have equality (egalitarianism).
John Rawls’ theory of social justice (1971) was implicitly anti-Nietzsche, where justice is seen as “fair play.” The idea of having a social contract was a direct result and answer to the ‘might is right’ ideal of the Nazis party in World War 2 – an ideal imperative to the will-to-power. In this case it’s the negative impact of nobility that has spawned a development in ethical theory over the past thirty years with the idea of social inclusion, diversity and equality of opportunity; feminism, racial equality, recognition of different abilities and disability, animal rights, environmentalism – all against characteristics outlined in nobility, it would have to be said that in this case the impact was caused more by the Nazi party than Nietzsche.
There are few major problems that come with assessing the ethical consequences of Nobility as arbiter of moral values. The first being the ‘bad press’ that Nietzsche has been unfairly given due to the Nazi party using extracts from his work. Just as it would be unfair to write off the views of Karl Marx on Communism - based on the version Stalin put into practise killing 20 million people, it would be unfair to dismiss the works of Nietzsche. But there is a stigma to the work of Nietzsche; he can easily be dismissed as an ‘odd ball’ (even by the ‘odd ball’ standard set in the world of philosophers). A schizophrenic writer who lived alone in the hills of Germany with a vendetta against God - who he loathed after the death of his father, and finally falling into a long coma believed to be brought about from insanity. His work is riddled with contradictions and the research he has done seems to be limited to a handful of ‘big name’ philosophers. He also has a habit of not arguing his theories but just asserting them to be unconditionally true - assuming that they are a “given” (as he would say); and universalising from examples – such as: Christian morality is like X therefore all moralities are bad.
There are problems with the position Nietzsche takes up. The first problem arises when he rids us of all objective values but is prepared to say that his idea of the will-to-power is ‘true’ unlike the views of Christianity which, to him, is ‘false’. If there are no values then his belief is only an opinion so therefore it should not be possible for him to state that will-to-power is valid and that Christianity is not - by doing so he is contradicting perspectivism.
Secondly comes the problem of Nietzsche being a naturalist, by doing so he seeks casual explanations for human actions and beliefs; yet he dedicated a section of Beyond Good & Evil rubbishing causation. “It is we alone who have fabricated causes…and when we falsely introduce this world of symbols into things and mingle it with them as though this symbol-world were an ‘in itself’, we once more behave as we have always behaved, namely mythologically.” [Ch. 21]
Again the problem of Nietzsche being a naturalist, this time it is to do with the fact the naturalism tries to explain human nature in terms of nature facts - in terms of causation (as mentioned above) and also in terms materialism and human essence. Nietzsche has a great hostility towards materialism and as for the human essence, he has tried to rid us of such metaphysical notions despite saying we live in a “world whose essence is will-to-power” [Ch.186].
The final problem is that philosophical naturalism demands continuity with the sciences. He has no faith in science; seeing it as a type of positivism. Saying it’s there to make us ‘happy,’ by ‘happy’ he means a false sense of security as it tries to con us into believing that it has all the answers to explain life. It’s science’s obsession with finding out how to make us immortal that makes it a form of dogmatism for Nietzsche. Because he is a critic of the sciences he again contradicts his position as naturalist.
Yet despite all these criticisms, it’s clear from the section before that, in the field of meta-ethics, he has pre-empted the modern theories of cultural relativism, a will-to-power that is superficially similar to psychological egoism, views of emotivism and prescriptivism; and has the foresight to see the importance of psychology and the relevance it has to philosophy. In terms of impact, however, it has to be said that despite his genius he has had very little impact on the philosophy world and from that it follows that the impact, of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good & Evil, on ethics has to be seen as limited. Limited partly due to the fact that his philosophical successors haven’t paid his work the credit it deserves; and although many come to the same or similar conclusions, in areas of meta-ethics, they rarely acknowledge him. His impact also has been limited by time, Beyond Good & Evil was published in 1886 which isn’t too long ago in terms of philosophy – a subject stretching through many centuries; and just like ideas and concepts of Leonardo da Vinci (such as ideas of aviation and military machinery), the recognition deserved takes a while to come.