Nietzsche and Mill: Morality, Power, and Social Utility
Nietzsche on Master and Slave Morality
Nietzsche argues that the world’s religions, especially monotheistic ones, stem from hate, not love, positioning priests as significant historical proponents of hate. He considers classical culture before the rise of major religions, where the term ‘good’ designated those in a vital, powerful condition, while ‘bad’ denoted the antithetical, weak condition. The ‘good’ (the strong or masters) felt no hatred towards the weak; they were simply satisfied with their own being. Nietzsche suggests these types are naturally suited to lead and teach the weak.
However, within the group of the weak, a feeling of envy brews regarding the supremacy of the powerful; they are admired yet hated. This negative feeling, or ressentiment, of the weak towards the strong fueled the development of various legends, all aimed at prophesying a savior figure. This marks the beginning of the ‘slave revolt in morality’. When this savior figure fails to arise or is unsuccessful, seeing that defeating the strong in this life is impossible, the weak begin to dream of another life. In this afterlife, the strong will be punished, justice will be served, and the weak will assume their rightful position. This, Nietzsche claims, is the origin of concepts like heaven and hell. He references a passage attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, suggesting the blessed in heaven can witness the torture and humiliation suffered by souls condemned to hell.
Because slaves operate this way, focusing more on a possible future than the present, their actions differ entirely from the masters. Master morality is founded on self-faith, pride, and self-affirmation. In contrast, slave morality originates from the oppressed and weak. It begins by condemning the values and qualities of the powerful. Once the power and domination of the masters are denigrated, slave morality decrees the qualities of the weak as ‘good’: compassion, service, patience, and humility.
Mill on Utilitarianism and Social Hedonism
John Stuart Mill defends social hedonism, interpreted through the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle. This principle holds that actions are right if they tend to promote happiness, and wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, considering the happiness of the greatest number of people. Mill advocates for a form of utilitarianism (often interpreted as rule utilitarianism) based on ethical principles derived from their utility, recognizing the happiness resulting from actions as the ultimate moral authority. However, the text notes a potential conflict: if an individual understands that lying in a specific instance produces more pleasure (or less pain) than honesty, their ‘right’ action in that case might seem to be lying (closer to act utilitarianism).
Ethical principles observed across different societies and times have repeatedly demonstrated their usefulness and positive contribution to the common good. Utilitarianism, as a form of moral positivism defending social hedonism, supports these principles and promotes legislation grounded in scientific legitimization rather than dogma. Moral science should serve as the basis for legislation governing social life, determining what is right and wrong under its rule.
Ethics, Legislation, and Education
The state must legislate for everyone. Therefore, the ethical principles inspiring laws should be guided by the principle of utility, not by the dogmas of any particular religion, as the state must respect all religions without imposing any single one. To cultivate sentiments aligned with the practice of social hedonism, human beings must be educated to promote altruistic values.