“That which does not kill us makes us stronger”, Friedrich Nietzsche famously wrote.
In this Sprouts special in collaboration with Stephen Hicks, we explore Nietzsche’s division
of the world into sheep and wolves, and how our morality, what we consider as good and
bad, is the result of brute biological events.
PART 2 “Sheep and Wolves”
Nietzsche says: All of organic nature is divided into these two types of species— those who
are naturally herd animals and those who are naturally loners — those who are prey and
those who are predators.
Psychologically and physically, this divide also runs right through the human species.
Some people are born fearful and inclined to join a herd — and some are born fearless
and inclined to seek lonely heights.
Some of us are born sedentary and sluggish — and some of us are born crackling with
purpose and craving adventure.
Some, to use Nietzsche’s language, are born to be masters, and some are born slaves.
There is a brute biological fact here: Our traits are evolutionarily bred into us.
Just as a sheep cannot help but be sheepish and a hawk cannot help but be hawkish, each
of us inherits from our parents a long line of inbuilt traits.
The master types live by strength, creativity and independence.
They respect power, courage,, risk-taking, even recklessness.
It is natural for them to follow their own path no matter what, to rebel against social
pressure and conformity.
And by contrast, the slave types live in conformity.
They tend to passivity, dependence, meekness.
It is natural for them to stick together for a sense of security, as herd animals do.
Nietzsche then turns to morality—good and bad, right and wrong.
For a long time we have been taught that morality is a matter of commandments set in stone thousands
of years ago.
Not so, says Nietzsche: what we take to be moral depends on our biological nature —and
different biological natures dictate different moral codes.
Think of it this way: If you are a sheep, then what will seem good to you as a sheep?
Being able to graze peacefully, sticking close together with others just like you, being
part of the herd, and not straying off.
What will seem bad to you?
Wolves will seem bad, and anything wolf-like, predatory, or aggressive.
But what if you are a wolf?
Then strength, viciousness, and contempt for the sheep will come naturally to you and seem
good.
There is nothing the wolves and the sheep can agree on morally—their natures are different,
as are their needs and goals, as is what feels good to them.
Of course, it would be good for the sheep if they could convince the wolves to be more
sheep-like, but no self-respecting wolf will fall for that.
So: one’s moral code is a function of one’s psychological makeup, and one’s psychological
make-up is a function of one’s biological make-up.
Nietzsche is among the first to apply evolutionary concepts to morality: Moral codes are part
of a biological type’s life strategy of survival, and the more one looks at the history
of morality evolutionarily and biologically, the more one is struck by dramatic changes
in moral codes across time.
And this is the key problem, Nietzsche argues, for the historical record shows a disturbing
inversion.
Formerly, we prized above all excellence and power, and we looked down upon the humble
and the lowly.
Yet now the meek, the humble, and the common man are the “good,” while the aggressive,
the powerful, the strong, the proud are “evil”.
Somehow the morality of the weak has become dominant, and the morality of the strong has
declined.
This moral inversion is dangerous: the traits of strength and power, those of that ennoble
man, are now condemned; and the traits of ordinariness and modesty, those of that weaken
man, are praised.
Morality, accordingly, has become a bad thing; or, more paradoxically, morality has become
immoral.
The morality of the weak has somehow become dominant, and the morality of the strong has
declined.
How is this rather paradoxical state of affairs to be explained?
TO BE CONTINUED
What are your thoughts on Nietzsche’s view of man being born along the spectrum of sheep
and wolves?
And do you share his concern about an inversion of moral values?
For more information check the descriptions below.
There you’ll also find a link to Stephen Hicks’s full account of the German philosopher.