The Relationship between the Noble and the Slave

The slave needs the noble man to define himself whereas the noble man defines himself. The slave is unable to self-reflect and make decisions based on internal stimuli, he is reactionary, and subjected to external stimuli such as the noble man to act. The noble man is necessary for the slave.

The noble man does not observe slaves in order to react, but merely for cleaver amusement. The slave being neither necessary nor satisfactory, is accidental to the noble man’s actions. From what I take from Essay 1 of The Genealogy of Morals the noble man is essentially self-sufficient and creates his own character independent of the prevailing conventional norms and he creates his own values. Though by describing the noble man as strong like a beast that he needs others to exercise his strength, his power, over and that is the role slaves play. The noble “designate themselves simply by their superiority in power” and by the character trait of truthfulness(465). The noble are truthful to themselves about who they are and are unafraid of internal evaluation and this is in ‘contradistinction’ to the slave who, incapable of self reflection, uses the noble to construct its identity.

The slave, or herd instinct as also called by Nietzsche, defines itself in relation to the noble. The noble is egoistic and so the slave defines its-self as un-egoistic, which for Nietzsche is utilitarianism. The noble creates value from oneself, it is the source if the good, is what’s best for the creator, and is the source of greatness; the slave takes the only control it can since it lacks creativity and originality by transforming this notion of good into the good in common, thereby democratizing the good and turning it into something mediocre.