Master and slave morality is a prominent theme in Nietzsche’s work Beyond Good and Evil, and he uses this theme as an archaeological approach to getting to the roots of what is meant by “good” or “bad”. Master morality is an attitude of being to moral and appalling, respectively. Slave morality is an attitude which holds to the standard of that which is beneficial to the weak or powerless. Besides the differences, there are also similarities between them. Master morality emerges first, with slave morality being a reaction to it, as it hints in this quotation: “being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being able to be different, standing alone and having to live independently” (161). Master morality has some of the features of being a self-producing potency of nature, which ironically makes it both worthy and not worthy. It is commendable because it does not display one’s weakness. Similarly, master morality is the field of the resilient; it is noble and elite, suitable for a social class that is in ownership of power that is geared towards warfare, excitement, manhunting, and basically everything else that involves being strong, having autonomy, and pursuing actions that have no consequences. Slave morality, nonetheless, comes to be as an answer to another authorization formation, like master morality. There will be some people who are incapable to preserve their place by the use of their power because they do not have it.In terms of slave morality, Nietzsche describes the Jews’ slave revolt in morality, and how they accomplished to overturn standards as arranged by the master morality: “The Jews — a people “born for slavery,” as Tacitus and the whole ancient world say; ‘the chosen people among the peoples,’ as they themselves say and believe — the Jews have brought off that miraculous feat of an inversion of values, thanks to which life on earth has acquired a novel and dangerous attraction for a couple of millennia: their prophets have fused ‘rich,’ ‘godless,’ ‘evil,’ ‘violent,’ and ‘sensual’ into one and were the first to use the word ‘world’ as an opprobrium. This inversion of values (which includes using the world ‘poor’ as synonyms with ‘holy’ and ‘friend’) constitutes the significance of the Jewish people: they mark the beginning of the slave rebellion in morals” (195). From this quotation, readers can see the repetition of “Jews” throughout, and this emphasis is evident that Nietzsche has a convinced desire in his text, and the readers can feel strong reactions when coming across that. Nietzsche principally says “inversion of values,” and it led to new meanings of “good” and “bad”, which implies slave morality. The Jews, being frail and troubled, outwardly did not have a way to be “good”. Nietzsche, based off his tone, views the Jews as accountable for the rebellion that shaped slave morality. They established a negative dislike for the masters, which is called ressentiment. In detail, ressentiment is an aggression focused at the basis of someone’s frustration; the individuality wants to protect and guard itself from something that is triggering the idea of feebleness and distrustfulness. Also, the individuality redefines the value structure and generates new morals, so much that it assaults the basis of someone’s frustration. Thus, ressentiment gives a new perspective on morals, which is “the last great slave rebellion” (46). This quotation shows that the overview of slave morality deals with struggle, and the struggle itself makes people strong. Also, because those being involved in slave morality cannot use strength, they must use persistence and their sly ways to overcome the masters. Furthermore, “Evil” is used to discuss the masters negatively; under slave morality. ruler is just he or she who has the capacity to command obedience. To enforce obedience on others, you must command obedience in yourself. No one should rule or stand above others. Slave morality is being primarily obedient. What an excellent ruler does justify human existence, has a advantageous wish in oneself, knows what one is capable of doing in the world, has the supremacy to look for in the future, and is sublimating – one who provides a new aspiration for the actions.Nietzsche defined master morality, on the other hand, as the morality of the strong-minded as he mentions: “The noble human being separates himself from those in whom the opposite is such exalted” (226). Essentially, the master is good, resilient and has supremacy, while the weak ones that are fearful are bad. Morality here implies that you give yourself the freedom — the yearning for an arrangement of sense in terms of consideration within ourselves. This shows that the core of master morality is nobility. The nobles, alone, regulate what is good. Slaves, on the other hand, prioritize anything their masters find important. The slaves are servants succumbing to the willpower and understanding of the master. Nobility necessitates a person to disentangle oneself from that. As Nietzsche says, “that affirms life as a great boon, in spite of all its terrors this shows great strength and a remarkable and noble freedom from resentment” (86). Nobility is geared towards people who form their own values and do not pursue the authorization of other people and “show great strength” (86). The masters regulate what is damaging and what is honorable, which means that being a master while being noble requires one to have an attribute that is connected with power and having power within themselves. They are neither weak nor reliant on other people and have specific qualities like being brave, having awareness, having compassion, and having privacy. No other individual should own or dominate individuals except for the individual themselves, and this is the obligation. Masters are makers of morality; slaves reply to master-morality with their slave-morality. Master morality encircles characteristics that are believed to be malevolent by most individuals, such as self-importance and a determination to control. Noble men embrace master morality and these noble men reflects the people who are not like them as bad, which then troubles those people in the long-run. Masters are courageous and they find pleasure in making a statement. Since life is basically battle and expropriation, masters are self-assured in the face of encounters. Intrinsically, master morality confirms egotism, determination, independence, decisiveness and threat. Master morality embraces using others for one’s own means.From this, it is evident that slave morality is a response to master morality. If you cannot command, then you must follow. There is no in between. Why is it hard to be independent in this world? Independence is threatening because people are contingent on desire. Instead of grounding good and bad on the penalties of an occurrence, slaves base ethics and morals on the purposes of an occurrence. Because master morality initiates from one being strong, slave morality initiates from one being the weak, so perhaps the slaves are essentially envious of the masters. The slaves do not try to be masters and noble, but the slaves try to make the masters slaves. Master morality, for Nietzsche, is formed by the willpower to control and discoveries its morality based on whether or not something is beneficial people because “the noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges …” (227). The first condition of ruling is that it should come in a bare condition and have a will resilient enough. Free will, for example, is when one has done the alteration that one wants to pursue. Master morality is self-causation. No restriction. No divisions. No moral sense. Essentially, if something contributes to one’s self-esteem and self-assurance, it is respectable; nevertheless, if something or someone delays one’s and their development, it is bad, like slaves, which is why slave morality is a morality of struggling but responding to the oppression at the same time. The master chooses what is good, and indirectly those things that are bad as well. Good and bad are well-defined in relation to penalties: an affirmative consequence is good, while an undesirable consequence is bad. The strong willed masters will unsurprisingly tyrannize the feeble slaves, because that domination is good for the masters, and thus, ethically correct. Life is inherently a tragedy. Things fall apart and dissolve. That lacks substance because, for slaves, it is a defense against substance, a response against false endurance, and continuous ventilation between optimism and terror. It must constantly ventilate because it lacks substance, which is source and belief.In addition to the differences between master morality and slave morality, there are similarities too. Firstly, neither master morality nor slave morality is accurate, and one is not more correct over the other. Master-Slave Morality is a concept that was based off of societal standards and how people associate each other; thus, “there is master morality and slave morality – to this I immediately add that in all higher and mixed cultures attempts at a mediation between both moralities make an appearance as well, even more often, a confusion and mutual misunderstanding between the two, in fact, sometimes their harsh juxtaposition – even in the same man, within a single soul” (226). This shows that there is only one morality, which is yours, as it says “mediation between both moralities” (226). Isn’t one’s morality always the master morality? Isn’t morality just a word for for what your inner self believes to be good vs. bad behavior? There is, in fact, “a mutual misunderstanding between the two” (226). To elaborate, when one has a set of morals that they follow and acknowledge, then that morality relates to the idea of master morality. Moreover, this quotation also shows that by goodness of our own humankind, humans will always start off with the idea of slave morality because humans begin by being frail, childish, powerless, inexperienced, and naive. This is when the advancing part of life for humans occur — it is an innovative process. Humans are born with a curious mindset that is primarily that of servitude. To get out of that mindset of being a child or being a slave, it is essential to submit to the basis of life and autonomy. Both terms relate back to the idea of having a “single soul” (226).Another similarity between the relationship between slave morality and master morality is that the source of good and evil are found in both of those types of morality. Furthermore, slave morality observes anything that inflicts agitation as evil, and thus, it must be demolished. Master morality does talk about good and evil too, but takes on an opposing approach — anything that stimulates and encourages is good, even when one is encouraging agitation: “According to slave morality, those who are ‘evil’ thus inspire fear; according to master morality it is precisely those who are ‘good’ that inspire, and wish to inspire fear, while the ‘bad’ are left contemptible” (229). To put it in a simpler way, master morality is your feeling. Slave morality means the the feelings of other individuals. Thus, relating back to people’s viewpoints, people are faced with an instinctive decision everyday: Should a person listen to their own opinions or to other people’s opinions? Morality essentially goes down to this question. Thus, humans have a yearning for both types of morality as both have to do with opposite viewpoints of good and evil. Nietzsche implies that we have an intrinsic inclination to be ordered around because this is a beneficial way humans can have an intuitive impulse to pay attention to other people, which is an indication of affection and friendship. Therefore, it is important to understand the concept of the two types of morality: your morality and the morality of others as well as how this ties into good vs. evil.