The Morals of an Immoralist-Friedrich Nietzsche

8/13/2019 The Morals of an Immoralist-Friedrich Nietzsche

1/24

The Morals of an Immoralist-Friedrich Nietzsche. IAuthor(s): Alfred W. BennSource: International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Oct., 1908), pp. 1-23Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2376714.

Accessed: 17/11/2013 16:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

International Journal of Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 189.14.169.216 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:32:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2376714?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2376714?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/24

THE INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF ETHICSOCTOBER,1908.

THE MORALS OF AN IMMORALIST-FRIEDRICHNIETZSCHE.'ALFRED W. BENN.I.GERMANY, so rich in everyotherkindof phil-

osophicalliterature,has not contributedmuch toethicalthought.Innumerable ittenlehren ave doubt-less flowed rom helaboriouspens of her professors;and her greatwritershave given utterance o manycasual thoughts n theproblems f good and evil,vir-tue and vice. But withthe singleexception f Kant'scategoricalmperativehehas produced othinghat heworld in generalhas acceptedas comparable o theachievementsn the same fieldof Greece,Rome andBritain. Fichte ndSchopenhaueromenext oKantforinterestndvalue. They annot, owever,e said tohaveproducedmuch mpression utsideGermany;and theirmoralitys, or at leastclaimstobe, so closelyboundupwith heirmetaphysicss inevitablyo suffer ydetach-

' The following was writtenbefore I had the advantage of reading thearticles by Mr. Pigou and Miss Atkinson n theApril (1908) number of thisJOURNAL,f which one deals entirelyand the other partially with Nietz-sche s ethics. Both writers approach the subject from a point of viewsomewhat different rommine, and their interpretation f Nietzsche seemsto me rather too favorable. But that there should be so much generalagreementbetween three critics workingon independent ines seems to meon the whole a rather satisfactoryresult.Vol. XIX.-No. 1. .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/24

2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALOF ETHICS.ment romheirllusive nterpretationsfexistence.AndevenKant reallydid no morethan emphasize nd preci-sionize he dea of moralobligation,tterly ailing nhissubsequent ttempt o fill up the blank form with aspecificumof moralprescriptions.This speculativeweakness, ssumingt to exist, s noteasy to explain. It certainlys not connectedwithanyadmitted eficiencyn thepractical ide. The Germansyield to no othergreatnation n moral seriousnessnddutifulness;uchtriumphss theyhaveachievednwarandpeacewouldhave been mpossibleo a selfish,frivo-lous or a self-indulgentace. Nor has the dispositionto theorizeon what they do ever been lacking amongthem; if anythingt is present o excess. And in factwhat onemisses s notethical heorizingut originalityand ife nthe heories.It may be that heextremeiberty f theologicalpecu-lation n Germany,ombinedwiththe want of politicalliberty,ccounts orthisanomaly, s thereverse ondi-tions ccount or he xtraordinaryevelopmentf ethicalthoughtn the schoolsof Athens nd in Great Britain.For at Athensalways,as among ourselvesuntilquiterecently,hepopularreligion ervertedmetaphysicsntoan abstractmythology,hile hepopularrespect orper-sonal liberty ave freeplay to real or ideal reconstruc-tionsof ife. Plato is nearly s cautious s Millwhenhetouches ntheultimate ealities fnature;Mill s nearlyas bold as Plato when he sets up ultimate tandardsof conduct. Whateverfreedomof thinking or our-selves n cosmic ciencewe possess is due to Germany.Whateverfreedomof social action the Germanspos-sess theyowe to us. Their Frauenbewegungs thereto prove t.Within urownmemory ermany as for hefirst imeproduced truly thical enius, thinker ithwhom rob-lems of conduct onstitutedrombeginningo end thesupreme f not the sole interest f life. It may seemstrange hat should ay so muchof thedemonic nd



4/24

THE MORALS OF AN IMMORALIST. 3tragicfigurewhosenamestands t thehead of this tudy.For FriedrichNietzsche abitually osedas an immoral-ist,an emancipatorrommoralrestrictions,peaking fwhathecalled"moralin"as a deadly oison. Nietzsche'sfriends, owever, mostrespectableet ofpeople,werenot n the east appalledby such anguage,norneed wetake t in verydeadlyearnest. Theysaw in it no morethan strongwayofsaying hatmuch fwhatpassesforabsolutely ight ndgood s only ruewithin ertain erynarrowimitations,ndthat here re impulses,upposedto be veryvirtuous, hich endonthewholeto doman-kindmoreharm hangood.In giving this paradoxical form to his moralityNietzschewas merely ollowingheconstantradition fGermanphilosophy.We are accustomed,nd for thatmatterhis owncountrymenre accustomed,o look onHegel as a quite exceptional nstanceof whatmaybedone in theway of setting ommon ense at defiance.But Hegel,withhis immanentialectic fself-contradic-torypositions, nlybrought o a point whathad beenmoreorless themethod fall hispredecessors,ndwasdestined o be themethodof his chief uccessors lso.Kant naively upposedthat he was dissipating ume'sskepticismyan audacity fnegation eforewhichHumewouldhave shrunk ackappalled; and, notcontent iththatperformance,e proceeded o integrate ree Willwitha systemwhich iterally, o all appearances, eftDeterminism aster f thefield. Fichte, fterreducingthe non-ego-that s, thewholeobjectiveworld-to anassumptionfthe go,setstheegothetaskofnegatingtsownnegation, hich s at thesametime heconditionfits existence, ith hecomfortablessurance hat a con-summation hichwouldbe fatal to bothpartiesneedsall eternity or its achievement.More impatient hanhis master, chelling oldly dentifieshe twounderthenames of objectand subject, nd theworldgoes on asbefore-indeed, ccording o him,always has gone onprecisely ecause t alwaysknew hattherewas no dif-



5/24

4 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.ference etween hem. Schopenhauer,fterdisdainfullyrejecting he systems f his fellow-metaphysicistss somany absurdities, ets up a new absolutewhich, fterwillingtselfoutofnonentityntoexistence,earns fromsad experience he desirabilityfwilling tself ackfromexistencentononentity.Andto this ontradiction,hichlies at theverybasis of his system, e, dds another otless serious contradictionn workingout its details.Whileasserting he substantialdentityf all our indi-vidual willswith ne another nd with he universalwillofwhich hey re somanypartialmanifestations,e yetlimits heself-negatingowerof each will to itself. Onentering nto NirvanaI redeemmyself lone; the in-finite nguishof the world goes on as before. Yet atthesametime he short utof suicide s barred omebythesolemnwarninghat elf-inflictedeathamounts o arebellious eaffirmationfthewillwhich t seems o deny.This immanent elf-contradictionf German hought,althought first ecameopenand scandalous n Kant'scriticism,s older than Kant. To go no further ack,it already fflictshe monadology f Leibniz. Thosemi-nute individual xistences f which the worldconsistshave no windowsopening on the world,nor do theyreceive nfluencesf any kindfrom ne another, ut allgo ondevelopingt the samepace,eachby virtue f anevolutionary rinciple eculiar o itself. Thus,althougheverymonadreflectsheuniverse t an angle of ts own,it has no reasonto believethatthisphantasmagoriaep-resents an objective reality,for its whole experiencewouldbe the samesupposing o suchreality o be pres-ent; and although, y thehypothesis,olipsism s nottrue, here eemsto be no evidence f its untruth.It appearsthen hat Germanmoralphilosophy,o bethoroughlyative nd smackingfthesoil,must t onceaffirmnddenymorality.We shallthereforeotbe sur-prisedto find hatNietzsche,while offering brilliantexceptiono therulethathis country oes notbreedpuremoralists,onfirmsherulethatherphilosophies illingly



6/24

THE MORALS OF AN IMMORALIST. 5assume the form of a square circle-that bold construc-tion whichProfessorMeinong,no doubton the strengthof long experience, has recentlydeclared to be quiteconceivable.Furthermoreit is necessary, or at least traditional,that a German philosopher,to be original, should notonly end by contradictinghimself, but that he shouldbegin by contradicting another German, preferentiallyhis own master. And we shall findthat the author ofZarathustra was quite up to the mark in this respectalso. The teacher to whose school he firstbelonged,andwho afterwards became the chief object of his attacks,was Schopenhauer. Nietzschewas twentyyears of ageand a universitystudentwhen, in 1865, he first cameacross the great pessimnist's ritings, t that time only nthe first awnoftheirpopularity. What chiefly ttractedhimseems to have been theirhigh literarymeritand thesincerityof theirauthor, a sinceritydisplayed above allin his attitude toward theology. Schopenhauer reallystood no fartherfrom the central beliefs of ChristianitythanHegel, if as far; but he never bowed down in thetempleofRimmonto the extentof passing himselfoff san orthodox Lutherainor other churchmanof any kind.He venerated thefigureof Christ; but there could be nodoubtthathis metaphysics xcludedthe notionof a Godand of a future ife just as much as they excluded thepossibilityof a happy life. And that was why the bank-ruptcy of Hegelianism, after 1848, left the system ofKant's rival continuator n a positionno betterthan be-fore. For to the pietistic and obscurantistreaction thatsucceeded the abortive revolution, free thought was ashateful under the formof pessimism as under the formof optimistic antheism. We are apt to look on Germanyas the great emancipatorfromsuperstition; but in thisinstance, as in the early eighteenth entury, he seemsto have been led out of darknessby lightfromtheWest,by the influence f Buckle and Darwin, and by Renan'sVie de Jesus,followedup as thiswas by Strauss's second



7/24

6 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.Leben Jesu. At any rate a far more iberaltone pre-vailed in the sixtiesthan n theprevious decade; andSchopenhauer's hilosophy rofited y the new spirit,which t also stimulatedn thehighest egree, o achievea rapid and dazzling uccess.Nietzschewas theson of a Protestant astor, nd be-longed also on his mother's ide to a clericalfamily.Brought p on strict eligious rinciples, e had learnedto seta particular alue onveracity, egardingt ratheroddly s a speciallyChristian irtue,whereas,n theoryat least, t is more Greek han Christian.He also was,orbelievedhimselfo be, descended rom noblePolish-family xiled on account of their religion early in theeighteenth entury; so that in his case the obligationoffidelity o truth was heightenedby the consciousnessofrepresenting n aristocraticand martyr tradition.Finally,Nietzsche ad chosen lassical philology or hisprofession,nd obtained chair t Basel when tillundertwenty-four,o thatfor some years afterwards is lifewas chieflyevoted o the study f Greek iterature ndphilosophy.Now whilegiving,s I have said,more redittoChristianityhan t deserves s a disciplinen truthful-ness, he still acknowledgeshat "the Greeks had thefaithfulnessnd theveracity f children"'WW., IX, p.104; writtenn 1871).2At a much aterperiodour immoralistoved tomain-tainthat hesincerity hich, s a religious abit,revoltsagainsttheprofession f a falsereligions, as a moralhabit,destructivefthemoralitywhich s no more hana convention.Andhe also maintained,n contemptuousreference o GeorgeEliot, thatto believein ChristianmoralitypartfromChristianitys a weak nconsistency(WW., VIII, p. 120). It was bothungracious nd un-just to tauntourgreatethicalmoralistwithbeingchar-acteristically nglishor womanish n thisrespect; for

2 In thereferencesWW. Nietzsehe's Werice, eipzig,1895,1904,large8vo ed.; W. z. M.= WillezurMacht, eipzig,1901,small8voed.; Leben=Das LebenFr. Nietzsches, on ElizabethForster-Nietzsche.



8/24

THE MORALSOF AN IMMORALIST. 7Schopenhauer, ho was continentalndvirile,had madethesamemistake,f mistake t is, and Nietzsche ad atfirstfollowedhis master's example. Acceptingpessi-mismto this extent hatthe searchforhappinessmustbe abandoned s a chimera,nhisworkontheOriginofTragedy published 872),he tellsus that chiefnoteoftragicculture s "an attempto makethesufferingsfthe world our ownby an effort f sympatheticove"(WW., I, p. 128). Greektragedy reachesa gospelofuniversalharmonywhereby veryone eelshimself otmerelyunited, usedand reconciled,ut absolutely newithhisneighborlb.,p. 24). And n a subsequent orkontheStudyof History, mong heredeeming epresen-tativesofhumanity,e names notonlythosewho havepassed through xistence n pride and strength,r inprofoundmeditation,ut also thosewho have come"topity ndhelp" (lb., p. 297). Lateragain hetellsus that"there is notenoughgoodness nd love in the worldtolet them ewastedonimaginarybjects" (Menschliches,Allzumenschliches,. 129; WW., I, p. 133). Andhehadpreviouslymade theperfectly ane and sufficientlyb-viousremark hat goodness nd pityfortunatelyo notdependon thedecayand growth f religion; although"practicalmoralitywill suffer y its collapse." At thesametimethisdependence f action on religious anc-tionsdeprivest, nhisopinion,f all ethical alue (WW.,X, p. 214).Returningto Schopenhauer, t is noticeable thatNietzsche cceptedhis teachingnot only on theethicalbut also on the metaphysical ide. His work on theOriginofTragedy s a bold attempto read the philos-ophyofpessimismnto heGreek ragicdrama. It arose,according ohim,from combinationfthe worship fDionysuswith heworship fApollo. The one god rep-resents he element fWill andthe other heelement fRepresentationn his master'sgreat work. Dionysusstandsfor"that original nd eternalpain which s thesole substanceof the world," "the true realityand



9/24

8 INTERNATIONAL OURNAL F ETHICS.primordial ne with ts eternalsufferingnd self-con-tradiction,eekingfor deliveranceby the creation ofbeautifulappearance-the Apolline element of Greektragedy" WW., I, pp. 34 and 35).Schopenhauer ad conceivedmusic as a direct nter-pretation f thatsufferingWill which s the truesub-stance f theworld,whereas heother rtshavefortheirmaterial he eriesof Platonic deas,theforms ndforcesofnaturewhich re one degreefarther emoved romtsabsolute eality. AndNietzscheonceivesGreek ragedyas having originated rommusic preciselybecause itfurnishes uchan artistic evelation fthe awfulsecretat the heartof things. NowRichardWagnerhad longbeforehim enthusiasticallydopteda theory o flatter-ing to his own rt; and, partly, o doubt, n thestrengthoftheirphilosophicalgreement,e and the youngpro-fessorof philology t Basel had becomefast friends,the twofrequentlypending heirweek-endsogethertthe house ofthegreat composer ear Lucerne. Indeed,Wagner is so glorified s a modern Eschylus in theOrigin f Tragedy,hat, ather o itsauthor's nnoyance,thegeneralpublicregarded hatwork hieflys a raptur-ous panegyric n the Music of the Future.As aninterpretationf Greek rt theOrigin fTragedyhas no value, and was very properly enounced y onedestined o become n afteryearsthe foremost ellenistof his age, Wilamowitz-Mbllendorff.ith regard toWagnerno moreneedbe said thanthatNietzsche ooncame to form very differentpinionof his perform-ances,givingmusic much owerplace among hemeansof culture,nd a much owerplace amongmusicians othatparticular omposer. But in a generalway Wag-ner's influence roved of decisive importance or hisphilosophical evelopment.Combinedwith he studyofSchopenhauernd of theGreeks,t led himto conceivethe promotion f geniusas thehighest ormof moraleffort.This,as we shallsee,was byno means denticalwith hetheory fthesuperman,lthought led theway



10/24

THE MORALS OF AN IMMORALIST. 9to thattheory; norwas it at first nconsistent itherwithpessimismor withthe commonmorality. Assumingthatthe contemplation f beautifuland sublimeobjects is thechiefif not the sole refreshmentvailable in a world ofuniversal and incurable misery,the power of creatingbeauty is a valuable asset for humanity, nol ought byeverymeans to be encouraged.Unfortunatelywhat we may call the moral end ofgeniushas, so far,been very imperfectlyulfilled. "Art-ists undoubtedlycreate their works for the benefitofothermen; and yet none will ever understandand lovetheirworks as theydid." It would have been a betterarrangementhad the relationbeen reversed,so that theeffect hould far exceed the cause (WW., I, p. 467 seq.).Such blunders are, however, to be expected. "Naturealways wills the commongood, but is incapable of choos-ing thebestmeans forthatpurpose. She shootsphiloso-phers ike arrowsat thehumanrace in thehope thattheywill strike and stick somewhere"- whereas they aremostlywasted (Ib.).Nature thenmust be taughtbetter, he must receive amore intelligentdirection; and here moralitycomes inwitheffect, ut not quite accordingto the highest dealsnow prevalent. " The goal of human endeavor hashithertobeen sought in the happiness of all men or ofthe majority,or in the developmentof great communi-ties; and under this false persuasion people will befound ready enough to give their lives for the state;whereasthey wouldhesitateto make the sacrificewere itdemandednot by the state but by an individual. As ifvalue and significancewere to be determined y countingheads " A muchmistakenview,thinksour author,withthe old bias of a universityteacher. "Humanity mustbe ever workingat the productionof great individuals:that and nothing lse is its task, . . . a consideration ug-gestedbyeveryspecies of animaland plant" (lb., p. 442).In our case educationmustsupplementnature. "Youngmen should be taught to compensatefor their own im-



11/24

10 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.perfection nd failureby contributingo the develop-mentof something igher nd more human han them-selves" (Ib.). But thehope thus wakened oon droops."It is hard to producesuch a stateof mind,for lovealone can inspire the consciousness f one's own im-perfection; nd love cannotbe taught" (444). Indeed,thingsare tending n a directlyopposite direction.Writingn 1874,Nietzsche ellsus that"the worldwasnevermoreworldly, everpoorer n love and goodness"(WW., p. 388). A common iew s to valueculture s ameans forprocuring ts possessor hegreatestpossibleamount fearthly appiness 447). Oragain, he elfish-ness ofthe statedemands hat all culture hall be madeinstrumentalo its serviceand aggrandizement. hris-tianity, n particular,whichbeganas one of thepurestexpressionsof the impulsetowardculture, as "beendiverted rom heproductionf saints ntoa means forthemanufacturefuseful itizens (448). Scienceoffersno help; it is "cold, dry, oveless; it ignores hedeepsense of dissatisfactionndlonging" 453). And"suchis thehatred ororiginality owprevailing hatSocratescouldnot have lived amongus, or at least notlivedtoseventy" 462).It willbe seen from he above extracts hat, p to theage ofthirtyt least,Nietzschetill ccepted hose ltru-istic ideals which n later life he was never weary ofdenouncing. n thisrespecthe followed chopenhauer,whocontrivedocombinehemost bsolutedisinterested-ness in theorywith hemost bsolute elfishnessn prac-tice. A really onsistentessimism ouldremain eutralas between goism and altruism, incethe furtheranceof lifeis of equally ittlevalueto myself nd to others.ButNietzsche ad neverbeen a pessimistn thecompleteor Hindoosense of cultivating he will not to live,re-gardingsuch an aspiration s self-contradictory,r atleast unthinkable.And apart from ogic his personalexperiences ere uch as to disgust imwith hemaster'sideal of pleasureas what alone makes ife worth iving.



12/24

THE MORALSOF AN IMMORALIST. 11While still a student t Leipzig the Prussianmilitarylaw obligedhimto servefora timen theartillery.Hiscareeras a gunner idnot astlong,fora rupture fthethoracicmuscles,ausedbythe ttempto mount restivehorse, esultedn an illnessthat ncapacitated imfromcontinuedervice n the ranks; and a short ttendancewith heambulance orpsbeforeMetz n 1870had a stillmore ruinouseffect n his constitution.But even somuchofa soldier's ife,chimingnwellwith hearisto-cratic ndfightingnstinctsf his Polish blood,gavetheyoungprofessor new dea ofthepossiblevalue oflife.If existence ieldednohappinesst still affordedhe oyof victoriouslyesistingheassaultsof pain; and fromthatheroicconflict,ontinuedn afteryears throughn-tense agonies of suffering,e came forth n optimist,continuingn his faith o the end.Hellenicstudiesno doubtcontributedo his conver-sion. In hisfirstwork,when tillunder he nfluencefWagnerand Schopenhauer, ietzschehad falsely nter-pretedGreek ragedy s a pessimisticmanifesto,ndbya strangelyervertedeading fliterary istory,e hadascribed ts dissolutiono theopposite eaching f Soc-rates and Euripides. We have alreadycome across apassage indicating muchmore favorable iewof Soc-rates; and in anotherpassage written bout 1877 agoodtime s lookedforward owhenXenophon'sMemo-rabiliawillbe substitutedortheBible as a manualofrationalmoralityWW., III, p. 248). Earlier stilltheage had beenreferred or its modelsto the old Greekworld, so great, o natural nd so human"' WW.,I, p.352). "It was throughhehigher oweroftheirmoralnaturethatthe Greekswere victorious ver all othercivilization" lb. 384).FamiliaritywithHellenicideals inevitably rewourphilosopher way fromRichardWagner's romanticistviewsof art and life. The- reachbetween hembeganat theBayreuthfestivalof 1876,whensometraitsofpettyvanityand selfishnessn the master's character



13/24


14/24

THE MORALSOF AN IMMORALIST. 13It will be rememberedhat in embracing essimismourmoralisthad also embraced he ethical deal ofuni-

versal benevolence ssociatedwith t by Schopenhauerand theHindoos; andhow, nder he oncurrentnfluenceofWagnerand theGreeks, e had sought o concentratethepassion for disinterestedelf-devotionn thesystem-atic culture fgenius. Unfortunatelyheonly wogreatmenthat he recognized s such in recenthistoryhadbothprovedfalse guides, nd this seems n thefirst n-stance to have made him distrust enius as a socialdanger. Its worship, e remarks, s a survivalof theadoration ormerly ivento gods, and to kings s theirrepresentatives." The elevation of individuals intosuperhuman eings encourages he idea that arge sec-tionsof thepeople are baser and more barbarous hantheyreallyare'" (WW., II, p. 340). Geniuseven"actsas an enemy ftruth ykeeping p an intense rdor ofconviction nd discouraging he cautious and modesttone of science" (lb., p. 411); while "never to havechangedone's opinions s the sign of havingremainedin a belated stage ofculture" lb., p. 407).As a consequence f the new departure cience, olatelydenounced or ts coldness nddryness, ow takestheplace ofart as the eadingmeansofculture. Beforethebreach withWagnersignsof a growing referenceforpure knowledge adnotbeen wanting.We had beentold in a trulypositivist pirit that "the proper ques.tion forphilosophys to determine ow far things reunalterable; hat hetaskof mprovinghem,n so far astheycan be improved,may then be fearlesslyunder-taken" (WW., I, p. 514). Thenoteofmoralenthusiasmwill not be overlooked. t had alreadybeen associatedwith higher tandard fintellectualismn the reminderthat"the mostfearful ufferings ave beenbrought nmankindby the impulseto be just without udgment;so thatnothing s morerequisitefor the generalwel-farethan hewidest ossibledisseminationf udgment"(lb., p. 329).Vol. XIX.-No. 1. 2



15/24

14 INTERNATIONAL OURNAL F ETHICS.Wagnerwas intensely erman, ntensely nti-French;

and Nietzschewhenhe wrote bouttheorigin ftragedysharedhis patriotic iews. He then ooked forward o"the regenerationf the German oul by the elimina-tion of everyLatin element nderthe external timulusofthe ast war, and inwardly ytheexampleofLuthertogetherwith all our great poetsand artists" (lb., pp.164, 65). His expectationserenotfulfilled; tanyrateGermanywas not regenerated,ut the contrary;andit is remarkablehat n ooking ack n1878 otheperiodafter hewar,whatmostoffendedimwas themoral or-ruption f his countrymen. heir notions f right ndwrongwereunsettled;theirragefor uxury nd enjoy-mentknewno bounds; their ensualitywas disgusting;nearly every Germanbecame a degreemore dishonest,sycophantic,varicious nd frivolousWW., XI, pp. 94,95). A general owering fintellectualtandardss alsocomplained f,butthis s only nother ympton f moraldecay. WithWagner he ast hope failed, ndhe turnedto foreign ountries, specially o Englandand France,forwhatGermany ould not supply.In the writings f the secondperiodthe referencesoEnglandare particularly omplimentary. he is "now[1877-1878] nmistakablyhead of all othernations nphilosophy, atural cience,history, iscoveriesnd thespreadofculture." This is due to thestrengthf indi-vidual character, esulting rom long national nherit-ance, enjoyed by her great men of science, nd fromtheir ndependencef learned ssociations WW., XI, p.68). Furthermorewe must allow English writers hecredit of having made admirablecontributionsowardan ideal scientificiterature orthe people. Their hand-books are theworkof theirmost distinguishedcholars-men of whole-minded,ich and generous natures"(WW., III, p. 102). Nor is it only mongmen of learn-ing that this strength f character s exhibited. "Eng-lish artisanswork hard at their trade not merelyforprofit utforpower, nd not merely or powerbut for



16/24

THE MORALSOF AN IMMORALIST. 15the utmost reedom nd individualdistinction"WW.,II, p. 359). Schopenhauers nowpraised forthe ap-preciationof hard facts and the determinationo beclear and reasonable hat oftenmakehimseemso Eng-lishand so little f a GermanWW.,V, p. 130).Everythingwritten t this timebears what on theContinents called a positivistmpress. Nietzsche oesnot seem to have read Comte, uthe refers dmiringlyto him as "thatgreat,honestFrenchmanwithwhomnoGermanor English thinker an comparefor compre-hension and masteryof the exact sciences,"' while totallyrejecting he religiousand constructive,lement f histeaching WW., IV, pp. 348,349). For himself urphi-losopher rofesses o know ittle bouttheresults fsci-ence; "but that ittlehas been nexhaustiblyerviceablein clearingup obscuritiesnd abolishing ormermodesofthoughtndaction" (WW.,XI, p. 402). As thequin-tessence fourpositiveknowledgehreepropositionsrestated: (1) There is no God; (2) there s no moralworld, . e.,no retributionorgoodor evilconduct; (3)good and evil are determinedy the ideals and direc-tionsof life,the best part of thesebeing nherited,utwith a possibilityhat. he resultingudgmentsmaybefalsifiedy thedemands fouractual deal (lb., p. 334).Withthe disappearanceof theismpessimism eases tohave anymeaning. The world s neither ood norbad;such notions pply onlyto humanbeings, nd in theirordinary cceptation annotrightly e applied eventothese WW., II, p. 46). For "free will is an illusion"(lb., p. 36), "that intelligiblereedom""ndercover ofwhich Schopenhauer ought to rehabilitatemoral re-sponsibilitys a fable (63), and "the thing n itself"an illegitimatenferencerom henomena31 seq.). Infact, Schopenhauer'smetaphysics as simply revivalofmedievalChristianityue towantof scientificnowl-edge (44).

At first he new ardor for destructiveriticism x-tendsto morality, hichwe are toldin so manywords



17/24

16 INTERNATIONAL OURNAL F ETHICS.is annihilatedogether ithreligion yourwayoflook-ing at thingsWW., II, p. 52). Butthe reasongiven smerely hatsciencecan admitno motives xceptpleas-ure and pain,usefulness ndinjury lb.). Such an arbi-trary estrictioneems tself obe a survival ftheology;and in fact t is traceable o theFrenchfreethinkingit-erature of the seventeenthnd eighteenth enturies,whichNietzschewas now studying ithdelight. He ob-serves,trulyenough, hat "in themetaphysical ensethere re no sins,but also no virtues" lb., p. 77), with-out rememberinghat metaphysical alues have beenabolished. His aphoristicmethodhad theadvantageofmaking ompositionasy forhimselfndfruitfulfeasyreadingforothers, utcombined ith hepassionofthehigherGermanntellect orself-contradictiont involveshim n hopelessconfusionsf thought.In accordancewiththismentalhabitthe destructivecriticism f morality s interspersedwith appeals tomoralmotives nd standards, r is evencarriedonwiththeiraid. As a conclusive rgumentgainstunselfish-ness we are told that"to be alwaysactingforothers salmost s mischievouss to act against hem:it is a for-cible intrusion on their sphere of action. . . . Not tothink fothers, utalwaysto be actingmost trictlyorone s self, s a high ortofmorality.Theworld s imper-fectbecause so much s doneforothers" WW.,XI, pp.310,311). An ex-artillerymanighthave rememberedthat hewayto hita distantmark s not to aim straightat it. A false and fussy ltruism s notthealternativeto takingexclusive are of number ne. "Love man-kind But I say, rejoice nmankind,ndtherefore elpto produce hesortof peoplein whomwe can rejoiceThe rightmorality s to seek out and encourage hosewho delightus, and to fly fromthe others. Let thewretched, he misshapen nd the degeneratedie out.They shouldnot be keptalive at any price" (lb., pp.313,314). Ourfastidious riendmusthave comeacrossmanyunlovely ightswhen serving n the ambulance



18/24


19/24

18 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALOF ETHICS.ception here re nonebutmoralexperiences"WW.,V,p. 155). "The history f science xhibitshe victory fnoble mpulses; there s muchmoralitymixedup withitspursuit" WW.,XI, p. 204). "It is a mistake oesti-mate philosopherss artists,eavingout of sighttheirjusticeand self-control"'Ib., p. 408). "Unfortunatelyweshallneverknow hebestthing boutgenius, heself-control and self-disciplinexercised in bringing tspowers nto play" (WW., IV, p. 357). "Hurrah forphysical cience, orthediscoveryf the aws andneces-sitiesof nature; and a double hurrahfor thehonestythatforcesus to study t " (WW.,V, p. 258.)As may be gathered rom omeof thepassages justquoted,generalutilitys theend of moralaction. Butmorality eednotthereforee impersonal.On thecon-trarywe best serveour trueadvantagebymoralaction(WW., II, p. 96). Benevolencend beneficence akeupthegoodman-butthey houldbeginwithhimselfWW.,IV, p. 336). The greatestwonders f antiquemorality,Epictetusforinstance,knew nothing boutthat altru-ism whichis so fashionablenowadays (Ib., p. 133).Nietzsche s a professional ellenistwas fascinated yGreek thics,ndthe nfluencef ts masterss shownnmore thanone reference.Epicurus countsamongthegreatestofmen (WW., III, p. 355); we have not ad-vancedbeyondhim,but his dominion as been nfinitelyextended WW., XI, p. 168). Aristotle s not named;butwe findhis doctrine f moralhabitpassionately e-asserted s againstLuther's doctrine f justificationyfaith (WW., IV, p. 30). And it is made a chargeagainstour systemof classical education hatwe areexercisedn no single ntiquevirtue s the ancientswereexercised n it (WW., IV, p. 187). As the consolationsof Christianityvaporate the consolations f ancientphilosophyre revived n new splendor WW., XI, p.168).

Ours s, ndeed, n age ofcomparisonnd selection,nage which, iscarding ll provincialismn conduct s in



20/24

THE MORALSOF AN IMMORALIST. 19art,bids us look roundamongthel istoric ivilizationswith a view to constructing highermorality rom heforms nd habitsofferedo our choice WW., II, p. 41).Now it is precisely he adherence o an unreasonedra-dition hatmankind ave generally egarded s the dis-tinctive ote of morality;so that whenNietzsche irstcalledhimselfn immoralist, hat he meant o empha-size washisdefiancef tradition s such,his demand ora reasonablebasis of action. Such a basis is not sup-plied by an appeal to our moralfeelings, or these arenothing etter han nheritedudgments. To trust hemis to trust ourgrandmotherndhergrandmotheratherthan thegods within ou, yourreason andyour experi-ence (WW., IV, p. 41).All this soundscommonplacenough o a reader ofBentham nd Mill; just as Descartesand Montesquieumay have sounded ommonplaceo the readers f BaconandLocke. AndwhenNietzsche roclaimed hesuprem-acyofEngland n philosophytwas probably oEnglishethicsthat he referred.Universalistic edonism s not,I think, nywhere tated n terms, ut its elements refreely cattered hrough is notes. There s, he tellsus,no instinctfself-pieservation;very ction nterpretedas evidenceof suchcan be explainedby the searchforagreeableand theavoidanceof disagreeable ensations.Speakinggenerally e onlywishforobjectsbecause heyare associatedwith agreeable states of feeling n our-selves WW., XI, pp. 253 and 292). Men might e esti-matedby the degree of happinessthey are capable ofexperiencing r communicatinglb., p. 367). One ofthe chargesbrought gainst "morality" is that it hasrepresentedelf-delights offensive,elf-torments ac-ceptable o thedeity (lb., p. 263). On the otherhandcultures an expression fhappiness lb., p. 316). Thejoy felt n absorbing ew deas shouldbe carried o faras to outweigh ll otherkinds ofpleasure lb., p. 403).Noble and magnanimous aturesexperience ome feel-ings of pleasure and pain so strongly hat the intellect



21/24

20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.is either ilenced r made instrumentalo them WW.,V, pp. 39, 40). Nor is happinessby anymeans so rareas pessimists ouldhave us believe. The world boundsin good will; and the constantittle verydaymanifesta-tions of this mpulse, akingthe formof good humor,friendliness nd unaffected ourtesy, ontribute nor-mously o the happiness f life (WW., II, p. 71). "Itneeds a lifefullofpain and renunciationo teachus thatexistence s saturatedwithhoney" (WW., XI, p. 154).In short, there is no lifewithout leasure; thefightforpleasure is the fight or life" (WW., II, p. 107).This view does not excludemorality, or each one iscalledgoodor evilaccording o theway nwhich e car-ries on thefight; and that depends on the degreeandqualityof his intellect lb.), a sayingelucidated y theremarkmade elsewhere hatno honey s sweeter hanthehoneyof knowledge; so that he who has spenthislifein its acquisition irst iscoversn old age how wellhe has obeyed hevoice ofNature, heNature hatgov-ernsall things y pleasure Lb.,p. 267).We saw how Nietzsche t firstookedonthediscoverythat actiondepended absolutely n pleasure and painas destructivefmorality.But he didnotlonghold tothatcrude nterpretationf ethical cience; forwe finda passage belonging o thesameperiodandmuchmoreconsistent ith ts general one nwhichhe tellsus thatjoy must exercise healthy nd reparative nfluencenman's moralnature,or why should themomentswhenwe bathe n its sunshine e just thosewhenthesoul in-voluntarily ledgesherself o be good and to becomeperfect WW., III, p. 166)? And as a substitute orreligious xercises e proposes mmediatelynwakeningin the morning o think ow we may givepleasure o atleast onehumanbeing n the course of the day (WW.,II, p. 385).Assuminghappiness, nderstood s pleasureand theabsence ofpain,to be desiredbyall and to be the onlythingdesirable,t wouldseemto follow hatutilitarian-



22/24

THE MORALSOF AN IMMORALIST. 21ismis theonlyrationalmethod f ethics; and it mighthave beenexpected hatNietzsche,peculatings he didunder the combined nfluence f Greek and Englishthought, ouldhavefranklyccepted tsprinciples,re-serving, f course,completeibertywithregardto theadjustment f details. What prevented imfromtak-ing thatstep was thepervading keptical nd negativecast of his intellect,ggravated, s in thecase of Cole-ridge,ofwhomotherwise e often eminds ne,by theuse ofdeleterious rugsandbysolitary abits. Accord-ingtohim here an be nomoral awbinding nall man-kindunlesswe can provethat there s someuniversalend ofaction; andsuch an enddoes notexist. Pleasurewillnot supply t,forthepleasuresof sensitive eingsvarywith hedegree f their evelopmentWW., V, pp.102 seq.), and happiness s pursuedby oppositepaths(XI, p. 233). Oddlyenough, he secondof these con-siderations s directedby name againstSpencer,thanwhomnonewouldhave more ordially cceptedt. Soonafterwardshe mostcompletedevelopment f individu-ality is proposedas an end, characteristicallynoughwithout eference o thepriorityf Spencer nd Mill inthis direction. It is truethatMill had certainly,ndSpencerprobably,akenhiscue fromWilhelm onHum-boldt; butNietzsche everbetrays nyacquaintance iththatthinker; ndthewayinwhichhe associateshis ownindividualism ith hetheory fevolutioneems oplaceSpencer's eadingbeyond doubt Ib., pp. 238 and330).After ll,theefforto getridofa moral aw speedilyresults n its rehabilitation.For as a means for in-creasing henumber f thosehappyaccidents n whichfuturedevelopmentsepend,t is recommendedhatweshouldmaintain heutmost arietyof conditions nderwhichhumanbeingscan exist (WW., XI, p. 239); andthiswouldsurelynecessitate code of social usticetobeginwith,as Spencerpointedout long ago in SocialStatics, and as ProfessorJuvalta,of Pavia, is neverwearyof insisting n at thepresentday, although is



23/24

22 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALOF ETHICS.theory, nlikeSpencer's, s penetratedwithsocialisticideas.Nietzsche imself, henhe has to combat ocialistde-mands, s notslow to quote usticeas a recognizedocialobligation. Admittinghat the presentdistribution fproperty esults rom nnumerablects of injustice ndviolencenthepast,he deprecateshe repetitionfsimi-lar acts in modern imes, etting is hopesratheron ageneral ncrease n the sense of usticeand a diminutionof theviolentmpulses ll round WW., I, pp,. 34seq.).As a last homage o the receivedmorality, notedat-ing fromthe year 1880 may be mentioned,n whichNapoleon s called the greatest fmen, f his aim hadbeenthegood of humanityWW., XI, p. 387).Notlongafter bandoninghecultivation fgenius sa universal nd,Nietzsche eems to have takenup andsubstitutedorit the dea,so prominentnhis ast period,ofbreeding superior ace. Here againtheHellenic n-fluences prominent. n a fragment atingfrom1876the Greeksare quotedas an exampleof whatmaybedone in theway of intellectual timulationy the self-consciousnessfsuch a race in themidst f a barbarouspopulation WW.,XI, p. 33). Englishscience nd phi-losophy,for which so much enthusiasms expressed,would no doubt act powerfullyn the same directionthroughhedoctrinefevolution, hichs knownohaveinterested ietzschentensely t thistime. In this con-nectionmuchhas been made of hisdebtto Darwin; butas he never understood hetheory f naturalselection,it seemsmore ikely hat hedecisive nfluenceamefromSpencer,whosepsychologye certainly ccepted o theextent fdescribing nowledges a nervousmodificationproduced ythe actionofexternal bjectson our organsofsense,withoutny cooperationrom hemind lb., p.275). Now Spencerfrom hebeginningwas interestedin evolutionmuch ess as an explanationfthepastthanas a promise fthefuture,s a pledgethat human ifemight ise toa farmoreperfect armony etween rgan-



24/24

SAVONAROLA. 23ism and environmenthanany yet attained; and on thisside his philosophy ould appeal strongly o Nietzsche,as also on ts ndividualisticide,withwhichwe have seenhimto be in complete greement. ndeed,he brings hetwo nto direct ssociation y asking: "Is not every n-dividual n attemptoreacha higher pecies hanman?"(lb., p. 238.) It is here, rather than in the youthfulworshipof genius,whichhis disgustwithWagner edhim orepudiate,hatwe can ayourfingernthegenesisofthesuperman.Herewe reacha second nd stillmoredecisive urning-point n the evolution f Nietzsche'sethics, he subse-quentphases of whichmustbe reserved ordiscussionnanother nd concluding aper. ALFRED W. BENITN.

FLORENCE, ITALY.

SAVONAROLA.*THOMAS DAVIDSON.

M[ORALITY is thepreparationorgoodness.Theformer s human, he latter divine. Man s morallife s conditionedy twofactors: (1) his ownwill,and(2) theuniversalwill, s realized n theworld, ubhumanand human. The aim ofthat ife is to bringthesefac-tors ntocomplete armony.Whenthis s accomplished,life s good,divine. Godis good,not moral.That such s themoralproblem,nd such ts solution,has long been recognized.It is recognizedn theVeda,in the Gathas, n the Tripitaka, n the Bible, in theKoran,in A~schylus,n Heraclitus,n Dante, n Tenny-* This lecture s one of a series delivered t Philadelphiaand otherplaces by the late Thomas Davidson, on "The Leaders of SpiritualThought n the Middle Ages," and has been given to the JOURNALyMr. Davidson's literaryexecutor,Prof. CharlesM. Bakewell of YaleUniversity.

The Morals of an Immoralist-Friedrich Nietzsche

Documents

Transcript of The Morals of an Immoralist-Friedrich Nietzsche