Nietzsche, Morality and Religion

When considering the (hopefully) small proportion of my life that I’ve experienced so far, religion has never been particularly important, so reading Nietzsche’s work with my cultural background is not significantly shocking. I’m sure for the readers of the day, Nietzsche’s glorification of the lifestyles of the Greeks and condemnation of all that Christianity holds dear was possibly quite confounding. 

Nietzsche’s key claim seems to be that historical narratives have served to promote the interests of the slave morality, and that the conceptions of morality so deeply embedded in our society today are as a result of this cultural phenomena. Instead of being a measure for goodness, adhering to religious values has instead smothered its believers and caused a society filled with self-loathing and the values of the ‘weak’. Rather than valuing power, we have gradually descended into a society that values meekness, humility and surrendering to God. Instead of being inherently right, in fact it was through the use of force and a will to power that these values came to be seen as superior. The man of ressentiment and his values have overcome noble ones to be seen as absolute - even though, according to Nietzsche, they cause death rather than life.

The nature of morality as explored by Nietzche in ‘The Genealogy of Morals’ was never a question I’d properly considered, which made reading it of great interest. His proclamation that ‘God is Dead’ is well-known no matter what country you’re in, but this was previously about the furthest I’d delved into reading his work. Perhaps the fact that I was considerably more confused by his refusal to tolerate the ‘English’ temperament (as an English person myself) and constant put-downs perfectly illustrates that views on religion and morality in today’s society really have evolved. However, although secularism and atheism are both concepts that permeate pretty much all aspects of our world today, even inescapable to devout followers of religion, it can be said that traditional ‘Christian’ values and what Nietzsche terms the ‘slave morality’ still disseminate their influence on most people’s behaviour.

It just so happened that on the same day that I was meant to be submitting this blog post, I was doing an exposé in my class ‘Droit, Société et Religion’ on how religion and state interact within different European states. After giving a nerve-ridden speech in very mumbled French, I started pondering how I could maybe kill two birds with one stone and try and put my work into a philosophical context to do this blog post. In essence, my presentation focused on how countries that had a state religion and those that accorded preference to a religion were undergoing a process of deconfessionalisation, in favour of creating more of a separation between affairs of the State, and affairs of the Church. There are many reasons for this, including increasing religious pluralism, atheism and the growing influence of the European Union. But on the other hand, that isn’t to say that secular nations aren’t without their problems - the French notion of laicité, for example, has been controversial due to its role in measures that are seen to limit religious freedom.

But does this seemingly decreasing influence of religion on the law and the affairs of the state mean that we as a community are finally beginning to see God as the father of evil and are in the process of abolishing metaphysical notions? Furthermore, has this official change from the overarching leaders of communities resulted in our conceptions of morality changing or do they remain deeply rooted in Christianity due to its historical dominance?

In answering these questions, it is perhaps helpful to consider what Nietzsche might have thought if he were still alive today. Are we on the right path to reverse our course of following the slave morality by becoming  increasingly secular?  From reading the Genealogy of Morals it seems that despite the growth of secularism and religious diversity, the valuation of the slave morality does in fact still permeate the entirety of European culture. We continue to oppress natural instincts, which he considers to represent a regression of mankind, and in a society constantly surrounded by technological advancements there is always the worry of political correctness or being exposed and ridiculed if you put a foot wrong. How is one meant to avoid feelings of guilt when they are forced onto him at every turn? The democratic system is at this point pretty embedded in European culture - another aspect Nietzsche might not have been too fond of, if his consideration of the ‘democratic prejudice’ is anything to go by. Today’s capitalist culture does not seem to promote the values that he considered to promote creativity and power, and instead money seems to drive most people’s actions, prisons are overflowing, while new criminal offences seem to pop up daily that declare what is ‘bad’ rather than what is ‘good’. Advancements in education, science and technology mean that as a collective community the people of Europe are probably the cleverest they have ever been. But at what price?

Nietzsche declares that ‘we are weary of man’ - and it seems that this is still the case. As a whole, the decreasing influence of religion seems to correspond with the potentially more liberal values that are on the rise. The rising lack of faith in God and Christianity’s lesser importance in spheres such as law and politics means that fewer people experience the feelings of guilty indebtedness to God. But beliefs in what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ are still rife - even if incorrectly so - and are so deeply embedded that they do not look to be evolving quickly. Even if there is no guilt before god, our instincts are not the drivers of our actions, the conception of the ‘bad conscience’ still exists, and moralistic ideals that can never be adhered to still seem to promote feelings of unworthiness.  Rather than having a God to follow, we now have to follow supposedly intellectual superior beings (i.e. political leaders) who get to decide what is bad and then disseminate this to the wider community. Perhaps as a result of the significantly longer period of time that the values of the man of ressentiment have been valued, this rise in atheism has not served to get rid of our notions of morality - and who knows if it ever will? At least Nietzsche attempts to value the realms of possibility for the future, and maybe that’s just what we will have to do too.