Believing after Nietzsche

“It is through our virtues that we are most severely punished.” - Nietzsche

Nietzsche approaches his criticism of religion from a moral or ethical standpoint, understanding that morality does not derive from true human nature, but rather from a religion that prevents man from being happy. It is our own virtues, or the effort we make to embody them, that punish us and make us unhappy.

Biography of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Nietzsche made morality and religion the target of his battles, considering his personal war against both as his greatest victory. "Beyond Good and Evil" is at the heart of this war, marking the beginning of his critical and negative writings, as he himself declares in Ecce Homo (1888), published posthumously.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born in Röcken, Germany, on October 15, 1844. He was the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Protestant pastors. At the age of five, he lost his father and was raised by his mother, grandmother, and older sister. In 1869, at the age of 25, he was hired by the University of Basel as professor of Classical Philology.

Master Morality vs. Slave Morality
In his books, On Genealogy of the Morality and Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche demonstrates that morality is neither innate, immutable, nor derived from human nature, but rather a product of history. In prehistoric times, when the line between human and animal was not yet well defined, some men subjugated others according to the law of the strongest, a rule that also prevailed among animals. The victors became masters, while the defeated became slaves.

The masters, upon triumphing, judged reality based on themselves and their actions, due to the privileged position they gained after their victory. For them, “good” was everything that represented their way of being and acting: violence, war, adventure, risk, power, pleasure, cruelty, physical strength, action, freedom, and autonomy. These values placed them in a position of superiority over others.

The masters, those who can, want, and are in charge, externalize all their instincts, acting without limitations. They may kill, steal, violate, gorge on food and get drunk because no one questions them — they set the law. An example of this, even today, is the boss, who has more freedom to express his instincts than the employee.

The priests, resentful of their defeat and eager for revenge, unable to physically overcome the nobles, devise a plan to surpass them mentally. Like the fox that unable to reach the grapes, declares them sour, so do the priests with the master morality.

In this way, the slave morality is born. Unable to impose themselves on the real world, they invented an ideal, ascetic, spiritual world — God. They retreat to monasteries and deny real life, calling it a “vale of tears”, in order to focus on the afterlife, where they will be happy again. They deny earth in order to affirm heaven, transferring the value of life outside of their own existence.

In the name of God and the afterlife, they renounce this life, their sexual instincts, power, pleasure, and everything they once possessed when they were masters. Values now become pacifism, humility, obedience, poverty, prudence, fasting, abstinence, equality, and fraternity.

Nietzsche identifies the Jews as a “priestly people”, and slave morality is indeed the morality of Judeo-Christianity, which gradually took hold. Both Judaism and Christianity were born out of slavery: the Jews were slaves in Egypt, and the Christians, for centuries, were the poorest class, persecuted by the Roman Empire until they ultimately prevailed over it.

Master morality is autonomous, with values defined from individual experience; while slave morality is heteronomous, with values imposed externally, stemming from norms like “God said” or “the Bible commands”. Master morality is vital, based on the body and its needs and appetites, while slave morality is abstract, denying and sacrificing real life.

A critique to Nietzsche´s genesis of morality
Nietzsche’s dichotomy between master and slave morality is undeniably original and thought-provoking, shedding light on the historical dynamics of human ethics. However, it also risks oversimplifying the complexity and richness of moral systems. His association of slave morality with values like humility, altruism, and meekness—which he claims arise from ressentiment, a reactive and vengeful stance against the powerful—may unfairly diminish the genuine and proactive motivations behind these virtues. These values are often rooted not in weakness or resentment but in a deep recognition of human interconnectedness and shared vulnerability.

The origins of these so-called "slave morality" values might be better explained by human nature itself rather than a reactionary moral framework. Empathy, cooperation, and the desire for fairness are traits deeply embedded in human evolution, vital for the survival and flourishing of communities. Nietzsche’s critique overlooks these natural and constructive aspects of moral development.

On the other hand, the master morality Nietzsche celebrates, with its emphasis on dominance, strength, and self-assertion, appears to mimic the “law of the jungle” or the survival of the fittest. This perspective is problematic as it could be used to justify oppressive systems or behaviors, prioritizing the powerful over the vulnerable. Such valorization risks promoting a worldview that dehumanizes those perceived as weak and legitimizes exploitation, undermining the moral progress that has sought to secure dignity, equality, and justice for all.

Moreover, Nietzsche’s emphasis on individualism in the master morality over communal values reveals a blind spot in his philosophy. His famous proclamation of the “death of God” and celebration of the Übermensch (Superman) reflect his rejection of traditional morality and communal obligations. Yet, this rejection seems detached from the realities of human interdependence, where societies thrive on mutual support and collective responsibility.

Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s critique remains valuable for its originality and its challenge to unquestioned moral assumptions. He rightly identifies the dangers of moral systems that portray the natural world as a “vale of tears” and discourage human agency. However, a more balanced approach might seek to harmonize the strengths of both master and slave moralities, emphasizing individual flourishing alongside collective well-being. Such an integration would honor Nietzsche’s insights while addressing the broader and richer dimensions of human ethics.

Theism and Atheism
Regarding the existence of God, Nietzsche follows in the footsteps of his atheist predecessors. For him, faith in God stems from a feeling of impotence that man experiences in relation to the realities around him.

Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud, for example, all had links to Christianity, either through their theological training or their parents’ conversion. It seems that atheism is born from theism, or it is a kind of inverted theism, a dialectic similar to the relationship between matter and antimatter in the universe.

The atheist thrives in dissatisfaction, always haunted by doubt, seeking more proof to convince themselves that God does not exist. The theist also doubts, but this doubt culminates in a cogito ergo sum. The theist chooses to believe, finding in faith a meaning for the universe, the world, and his own life, while the atheist settles into the emptiness, which can cause torment and suffering.

Nietzsche, for example, ended his days in madness. Other atheists fill this void with the pursuit of power, pleasure, beauty, or money, dedicating themselves almost religiously to these causes. Many atheists, in fact, could be considered more polytheistic than truly atheistic.

Conclusion - Contrary to Nietzsche's proposal, master morality—rooted in the exaltation of instincts and unchecked individualism—fails to bring true happiness, instead it may foster social injustice and conflict. In contrast, Christian morality, far from being about submission, is grounded in love and values that uplift human dignity. As the cornerstone of Christian ethics, love offers a path to transcendence, guiding individuals beyond mere survival to a life of authentic meaning and purpose.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC