Master morality vs slave morality (Philosophy HL)

The big idea: When you call something 'good', what's its opposite — bad, or evil?

Nietzsche says that tiny choice hides two completely different moralities. One grew among the strong, the other among the weak — and they mean almost opposite things by 'good'.

He calls them master morality and slave morality. This micro lays them side by side.

Start with the older code, the one Nietzsche thinks came first.

The strong name themselves 'good': Picture the ancient nobles — confident, powerful, full of life. They look at themselves and say: this is good — strong, brave, generous, proud. And 'bad'? Just a shrug at everything unlike them: the weak, the timid, the low. Here 'good' comes first (the noble says 'I am good'), and 'bad' is only an afterthought. Nietzsche calls this the morality of masters: it flows out of self-affirmation, not resentment.

Checkpoint — master morality: In one line: the strong call themselves 'good' out of pride, and 'bad' is just their mild word for the weak. Hold that — the slaves' morality runs the opposite way round.

Now flip it. What morality would the weak invent, the ones on the receiving end of all that noble strength?

The weak start with 'evil': The weak can't beat the strong in the world, so they fight back with values. First they brand the powerful evil — cruel, dangerous, arrogant. Then, by contrast, they call themselves good — meek, patient, humble, harmless. Notice the order has flipped: here 'evil' comes first (a NO to the strong), and 'good' is defined as simply not being like them. The very traits that make you weak — you can't strike back, so you call it 'forgiveness' — get repackaged as virtues.

Go further — higher-level insight: See what makes slave morality so clever, and so worrying to Nietzsche. It's a revaluation: it takes traits that are really just powerlessness — meekness, obedience, holding back — and re-labels them as moral achievements. Being unable to take revenge becomes 'forgiveness'; being timid becomes 'humility'. That the weak won this contest, and their morality became ours, is the book's central claim. Flagging this revaluation is a top-band point.

Checkpoint — slave morality: In one line: the weak brand the strong 'evil' first, then call their own weakness 'good' — a total reversal of master values.