Does Christian Morality limit
Nietzsche's Overman?
Recently, I've been exploring a few
Nietzschean concepts in morality and I've come to a few questions
that would be relevant to our class. In his work, Thus Spoke
Zarathustra, Nietzsche brings to
light his ideas on morality in the modern world. In it, humanity is
separated into two distinct classes: the herd and the Overmen or
natural-leaders. These two classes are vastly disproportionate, with
the herd being the large majority and the Overmen being the scant
minority. As they are the majority, the herd thus dictates what is
moral to limit the powers of the Overman. As Nietzsche takes great
effort to explain, Christianity is just that sort of moral system.
Professor Steven Earnshaw in his book on the subject writes, “...the
herd's Christian morality has grown out of a situation where the weak
have grouped together and produced laws designed to keep 'leaders',
or would-be Overmen, under control...” (p. 48, Existentialism)
Nietzsche then continues that the leaders must act above conventional
morality in order for the advancement of the human race.
What I found most curious about this concept is that he speaks as if Christian morality has successfully burdened the ambitious leaders of the world so that they cannot enact their plans. While I am certainly not a historian, to me, it appears quite the other way around. At its basest, and this may be disputed by many, the morals propounded by the Christian Dogma are generally non-violent. (Love thy neighbor, don't steal, don't kill, etc) Furthermore, it appears quite frequent that many modern leaders have put themselves into power behind the flag of Christianity. Even Hitler is one such example. It is general knowledge that he considered himself Christian, at least publicly. But herein lies the dilemma, I think. Just because Hitler said he was Christian does not mean that he properly adheres to its morality. To that extent, he essentially broke every rule there is. Regardless, it is arguable that many natural born leaders rise to power yet still adhere to a system of morality such as this. In this way, a powerful leader does necessarily need to rise above morality to accomplish human advancement. I suppose this matter has been subject to eternal debate and no one blog post would accurately address this dilemma, but it is good for reflection nonetheless!
What I found most curious about this concept is that he speaks as if Christian morality has successfully burdened the ambitious leaders of the world so that they cannot enact their plans. While I am certainly not a historian, to me, it appears quite the other way around. At its basest, and this may be disputed by many, the morals propounded by the Christian Dogma are generally non-violent. (Love thy neighbor, don't steal, don't kill, etc) Furthermore, it appears quite frequent that many modern leaders have put themselves into power behind the flag of Christianity. Even Hitler is one such example. It is general knowledge that he considered himself Christian, at least publicly. But herein lies the dilemma, I think. Just because Hitler said he was Christian does not mean that he properly adheres to its morality. To that extent, he essentially broke every rule there is. Regardless, it is arguable that many natural born leaders rise to power yet still adhere to a system of morality such as this. In this way, a powerful leader does necessarily need to rise above morality to accomplish human advancement. I suppose this matter has been subject to eternal debate and no one blog post would accurately address this dilemma, but it is good for reflection nonetheless!
No comments:
Post a Comment