On the Genealogy of Morals

Scholars often debate whether Nietzsche’s work should be examined through the lens of his biography. Some scholars believe that biographical context helps to illuminate his ideas. Opponents of the biographical approach argue that his background is inconsequential to his work, asserting that texts should be considered self-contained artifacts. Other scholars suggest that a balanced approach which utilizes both methods for examining a text provides a more comprehensive understanding of the work.

Since Nietzsche references his childhood in the Preface, a biographical critique may shed light on his unique relationship with religion. His father and grandfather were Protestant ministers, and his family held tightly to religious conservative beliefs. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883), Nietzsche declared that “God is dead,” a phrase which has become synonymous with his work. His meaning was that Christian theology was no longer holding up beneath the scrutiny of a changing world; therefore, the systems and foundations built by Christianity needed to be re-examined.

Nietzsche’s attitude toward Christianity was typical for philosophers and thinkers of his time. The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries had lasting effects; the rationalism perpetuated by the Enlightenment influenced 19th-century philosophers to re-examine their relationship with traditional ideas. Industrialization meant more people were leaving behind their families and rural communities—where religious practices tended to remain more conservative and to change more slowly—while increasing global connectedness brought other world religions into the cultural discussion. Scholars like David Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur were beginning to examine the Bible as a literary and historical text, altering how it was perceived in intellectual circles. Darwin’s theory of evolution challenged creationist principles, and the socialist and nationalist movements of 19th-century Europe challenged the previously assumed authority of Christianity in public affairs.

In the Preface, Nietzsche claims that from the age of 13 he began to question the accepted ideas of morality that society delivered. He begins by questioning the most basic elements of Christianity—good and evil:

Under what conditions did man invent for himself those judgements of value, Good and Evil? And what intrinsic value do they possess in themselves? Have they up to the present advanced human welfare, or rather have they harmed our race? (5).

While Nietzsche’s contemporaries were questioning whether society needed to find a new basis for ethical and moral action outside of Christianity as the religion began to lose power and influence, Nietzsche was questioning whether the morality perpetuated by Christianity was wrong from the start. Rather than merely wondering whether religious ethics had been rendered irrelevant by contemporary culture, Nietzsche sought to understand whether morality had caused harm. If good and evil were social constructs, Nietzsche realized they had the potential to help some while hurting others.

Moral relativism is the belief that moral judgements are relative to their cultural and historical contexts. Nietzsche, however, did not use the term “moral relativism,” and scholars disagree about Nietzsche’s alignment with moral relativism as a specific philosophical tradition. However, there are several important connections. His critique of traditional moral values is a rejection of moral standards, and his argument that morality is determined by the connection between Morality and Power reflects moral relativism’s emphasis on social constructivism. Examining Nietzsche’s arguments as support for moral relativism reveals the vast influence of the social power of religion.

Critics of moral relativism argue that this approach to morality leaves room for people to act in violent and self-serving ways and fails to condemn reprehensible actions and practices. Nietzsche’s philosophical work in On the Genealogy of Morals does not offer a replacement for the traditional Christian ethics he critiques. Instead, the philosopher seeks to uncover and expose what drives morality. Nietzsche is more interested in understanding and breaking down the history and origin of ideas rather than offering solutions.

In the opening of the Preface, Nietzsche claims that the most important work a person can do is develop self-knowledge. This is done by asking questions. He shows how his own philosophical inquiry led to more and more questions, simultaneously opening the world and closing it: Nietzsche explains that when a man, referring here to any person, learns to interrogate his own life and society, “a new and immense vista unfolds before him; its vast prospect staggers him; all sorts of doubt, mistrust and fear well up within him” (8). Nietzsche recognizes that the critical examination required by learning often leads to more questions than answers, opening more discussion and criticism. Rather than providing his readers with a definitive replacement for traditional Christian ethics, Nietzsche lives in the questions. His use of aphorisms to present his work is reflective of his need to allow his thinking and research to lead him down multiple avenues of thought at one time rather than sticking to an overarching message.