The Will to Power · Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
786.
_The History of Moralisation and Demoralisation._ _Proposition one._--There are no such things as moral actions: they are purely imaginary. Not only is it impossible to demonstrate their existence (a fact which Kant and Christianity, for instance, both acknowledged) but they are not even possible. Owing to psychological misunderstanding, a man invented an _opposite_ to the instinctive impulses of life, and believed that a new species of instinct was thereby discovered: a _primum mobile_ was postulated which does not exist at all. According to the valuation which gave rise to the antithesis "moral" and "immoral," one should say: _There is nothing else on earth but immoral intentions and actions._ _Proposition two._----The whole differentiation, "moral" and "immoral," arises from the assumption that both moral and immoral actions are the result of a spontaneous will--in short, that such a will exists; or in other words, that moral judgments can only hold good with regard to intuitions and actions _that are free._ But this whole order of actions and intentions is purely imaginary: the only world to which the moral standard could be applied does not exist at all: _there is no such thing as a moral or an immoral action._ The _psychological error_ out of which the antithesis "moral" and "immoral" arose is: "selfless," "unselfish," "self-denying"--all unreal and fantastic.
A false dogmatism also clustered around the concept "ego"; it was regarded as atomic, and falsely opposed to a non-ego; it was also liberated from Becoming, and declared to belong to the sphere of Being. The false materialisation of the ego: this (owing to the belief in individual immortality) was made an article of faith under the pressure of _religio-moral discipline._ According to this artificial liberation of the ego and its transference to the realm of the absolute, people thought that they had arrived at an antithesis in values which seemed quite irrefutable--the single ego and the vast non-ego. It seemed obvious that the value of the individual ego could only exist in conjunction with the vast non-ego, more particularly in the sense of being subject to it and existing only for its sake. Here, of course, the gregarious instinct determined the direction of thought: nothing is more opposed to this instinct than the sovereignty of the individual. Supposing, however, that the ego be absolute, then its value must lie in _self-negation._ Thus: (1) the false emancipation of the "individual" as an atom; (2) The gregarious self-conceit which abhors the desire to remain an atom, and regards it as hostile. (3) As a result: the overcoming of the individual by changing his aim. (4) At this point there appeared to be actions that were self-effacing: around these actions a whole sphere of antitheses was fancied.
(5) It was asked, in what sort of actions does man most strongly assert himself? Around these (sexuality, covetousness, lust for power, cruelty, etc. etc.) hate, contempt, and anathemas were heaped: it was believed that there could be such things as selfless impulses. Everything selfish was condemned, everything unselfish was in demand. (6) And the result was: what had been done? A ban had been placed on the strongest, the most natural, yea, the only genuine impulses, henceforward, in order that an action might be praiseworthy, there must be no trace in it of any of those genuine impulses--_monstrous fraud in psychology._ Every kind of "self-satisfaction" had to be remodelled and made possible by means of misunderstanding and adjusting one's self _sub specie boni._ Conversely: that species which found its advantage in depriving mankind of its self-satisfaction, the representatives of the gregarious instincts, _e.g._ the priests and the philosophers, were sufficiently crafty and psychologically astute to show how selfishness ruled everywhere. The Christian conclusion from this was: "Everything is sin, even our virtues. Man is utterly undesirable. Selfless actions are impossible." Original sin. In short, once man had opposed his instincts to a purely imaginary world of the good, he concluded by despising himself as incapable of performing "good" actions. _N.B._ In this way Christianity represents a step forward in the sharpening of psychological insight: La Rochefoucauld and Pascal. It perceived the essential equality of human actions, and the equality of their values as a whole (all immoral).
But people go still further: they try to grant both the egoistic and altruistic impulses the right to exist--equal rights for both--from the utilitarian standpoint. People go further: they see greater utility in placing the egoistic rights before the altruistic--greater utility in the sense of more happiness for the majority, or of the elevation of mankind, etc. etc. Thus the rights of egoism begin to preponderate, but under the cloak of an extremely altruistic standpoint--the collective utility of humanity. An attempt is made to reconcile the altruistic mode of action with the natural order of things. Altruism is sought in the very roots of life. Altruism and egoism are both based upon the essence of life and nature. The disappearance of the opposition between them is dreamt of as a future possibility. Continued adaptation, it is hoped, will merge the two into one. At last it is seen that altruistic actions are merely a species of the egoistic--and that the degree to which one loves and spends one's self is a proof of the extent of one's individual power and personality. In short, that the more evil man can be made, the better he is, and that one cannot be the one without the other. At this point the curtain rises which concealed the monstrous fraud of the psychology that has prevailed hitherto.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.