Matthew Faulconer and Professor Van Tongeren and Dr. Travis Anderson, Philosophy
In On the Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche says that every lawgiver eventually receives the call “patere legem, quam ipse tulistr” which means, “submit to the law you yourself proposed.” Nietzsche believes this call is being made to Christianity and that because of this, Christianity’s moral code will condemn Christianity. He calls this the self-overcoming of Christianity which is “the great spectacle in a hundred acts reserved for the next two centuries in Europe.”
It has been over a hundred years since On the Genealogy of Morals was first published and in many ways it seems that Nietzsche’s “prophecy” is being fulfilled. Many people have separated themselves from their church though it espouses virtues they believe in (like love, empathy and respect for others) because they believe their church does not exemplify those virtues. They use as examples the status of women in their church, their church’s position on homosexual rights, or the appropriateness of abortion. Others have condemned the Christian gospel because they believe it reflects a Western desire to dominate other cultures by positing itself as the only way for anyone to be saved. This is another example of Christian morality condemning Christianity because, according to Nietzsche, the equality of people is a tenet that has arisen from Judeo-Christian morality.
But though these examples are obvious examples of Nietzsche’s claim, they are also fairly trivial with respect to it. Nietzsche’s claim that Christianity’s moral code condemns Christianity includes but goes far beyond the claim that many following Christian ideals will abandon Christian churches. It goes further, first, because Nietzsche believes that accepting Christian ideals leads to the disbelief in the doctrines of Christianity—like the belief in God. Second, Nietzsche’s claim goes further because he asserts that Christian morality condemns Christian virtues themselves. In other words, Nietzsche believes that Christian morality leads those who accept it to reject virtues like love and kindness—virtues that, according to Nietzsche, are the product of Christian morality.
Nietzsche’s claim is not just a historical prophecy. He is not just saying what will happen, but what must happen because of a contradiction inherent to Christianity. He addresses himself to believers in Christian morals. Nietzsche considers On the Genealogy of Morals part of his “No-saying, No-doing” work. And, as I show, maybe more than to anything else, Nietzsche says “No” to Christianity. Since Nietzsche makes his criticism of Christianity intentionally biting, often intentionally offensive to Christians, it is easy to dismiss him. Further, though Nietzsche’s philological claims have generally been supported by other philologists, it would not be difficult to find claims that many philologists disagree with. Therefore, one could dismiss Nietzsche because some historical claim he makes in On the Genealogy of Morals is false. However, a believer in Christian morality should be an exceptionally charitable reader of On the Genealogy of Morals. She must choose that reading which makes the strongest case against Christianity. Only after trying to do this can a believer see whether Nietzsche’s attack is valuable. This is what I have attempted to do in my paper. Unfortunately, Nietzsche has often been rejected or accepted on simplistic grounds.
Interestingly, Nietzsche seems more worried about those who accept his philosophy, or at least a philosophy superficially similar to his, than he does about those who reject it. Nietzsche carefully distinguishes his own philosophy from those philosophies he could easily be confused with. Because Nietzsche attacks Christianity, he is often aligned with atheistic scientists, modern historians and so called “free spirits” (those who believe they have freed themselves from the demands of Christianity), but these are the people Nietzsche most vehemently rejects. Nietzsche criticism of atheistic scientists, modern historians, and so called “free spirits” is that their philosophies are the best examples of the contradiction inherent to Christianity. The same criticism usually applies to those who are not scholars but believe they agree with Nietzsche, even if they do not fit into one of these categories. In other words, Nietzsche criticism of Christianity (and often their criticism of Christianity) apply equally or more to these people, though they do not recognize this. Nietzsche seems to believe that his criticism of Christianity applies even to himself. He is distinguishable from those people he criticizes because he knows the criticism applies to himself while they think it does not. But even if Nietzsche’s criticism applies as much to every person who rejects Christianity as it does to any Christian, it still is an attack on Christianity. If Nietzsche is right, Christianity entails a contradiction that must lead to its own undoing.
In my paper I consider Nietzsche’s attack. A large portion of this paper is devoted to an overview of Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals. This ends with an explanation of the contradiction inherent in Christianity. At that point, I argue that the contradiction Nietzsche sees in Christianity arises because of a certain conception of the truth. I consider whether this conception of the truth that has grown from Christianity is necessary to it. Particularly, I consider whether it is possible to avoid Nietzsche’s criticism given beliefs peculiar to the Latter-Day Saints. Though several aspects of Latter-Day Saint beliefs suggest the possibility of avoiding Nietzsche’s criticisms, they also lead us to other seemingly insurmountable problems. Latter-Day Saint beliefs offer no simple solution to Nietzsche’s problem. But, I conclude by arguing, Latter-Day Saint theology—or better, its lack of theology—makes Nietzsche’s contradiction seem less problematic. In contrast to the theologies of the predominant religions, Latter-Day Saint theology indicates that our knowledge of God and reality is much more lacking than one would otherwise suspect. Latter-Day Saint theology is less vulnerable to Nietzsche’s criticism because it tells us more about what we do not know than what we know.3
References
- Friedrich Nietzsche. On the Genealogy of Morals in On the Genealogy of Morals; Ecce Homo, Trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, New York: Vintage (1989), p. 160.
- ibid.
- I thank Dr. Van Tongeren for his instruction regarding Nietzsche and helpful suggestions for my paper.