<p>According to this answer: <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/6030/4425">https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/6030/4425</a> I would say that Nietzche's moralities can be classified according to the research on universal values made by <a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=z9vHEy0osBAC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA1&amp;dq=schwartz+1992+universals&amp;ots=Pfwwi1iYfG&amp;sig=JKPk-oPl_9n8ccKgKro-9jIcaM0#v=onepage&amp;q=schwartz%201992%20universals&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schwartz <sup>(1992)</sup></a> on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_values#Psychology_and_the_search_for_universal_values" rel="nofollow noreferrer">universal values</a></p>

<p>The <strong>slave morality</strong> deals with: Benevolence, universalism, and to some extent tradition</p>

<p>The <strong>master morality</strong> deals with: power and achievement</p>

<p>The researches seems to suggest what Nietzche was suggesting: <strong>the two morality are diverging</strong>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>benevolence</strong> mostly relates to <strong>agreeableness</strong> <br>
  <strong>universalism</strong> to <strong>openness</strong><br>
  and <strong>traditionalism</strong> to <strong>agreeableness</strong> and a few facets of other traits. <br></p>
  
  <p><strong>power</strong> relates <em>negatively</em> to <strong>agreeableness</strong> and <strong>openness</strong><br>
  <strong>Achievement</strong> relates to certain facets of <strong>extraversion</strong>, 
  <strong>conscientiousness</strong>, and (<em>negatively</em>:) <strong>agreeableness</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Feel free to improve my answer</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T13:31:25.100Z
I would be very weary of connecting concepts from different theories to each other just because they seem to have a similar meaning when you squint at their definitions the right way. When you test such a theory empirically, it frequently fails. I have read books which see this kind of reasoning as a bias, search for "representativeness heuristic" and "representativeness bias".
rumtscho
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T15:27:09.083Z
@rumtscho: I lack of theoretical background, but I think that it could be really difficult to trace down a correlation between different classification, however I see an academical utility in this kind of effort. For sure it's easy to make mistakes, but it can be a thought to start further thinking.
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T19:48:23.293Z
FWIW, I agree for the most part (and I'm an existential psychologist by specialty who wrote the linked answer on values). While @rumtscho's precautions are wise, Revious' point is fair IMO, and the answer is probably close to the mark. Nietzsche's theories of motivation make prominent reference to the [will to power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power) as an overarching theory, so a failure to correlate advocacy of his moral system to power valuation would be rather baffling. Since he opposed the slave morality and religious values, benevolence and traditionalism probably fit well.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T19:59:51.993Z
@NickStauner: if you have time I would also be curious of your ideas on these two questions: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5997/increasing-the-quantity-of-something-which-is-initially-good-will-always-lead-to and http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5984/could-an-ethic-stating-that-everyone-should-care-about-himself-go-into-justifyin
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T13:16:51.620Z
2014-03-19T13:16:51.620Z
2017-04-13T12:56:16.417Z
Revious
<p>Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nietzsche argued that there were <em>two fundamental types of morality</em>:
  '<strong>Master morality</strong>' and '<strong>slave morality</strong>'. <strong>Slave</strong> morality <strong>values things
  like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values
  pride, strength, and nobility</strong>. Master morality weighs actions on a
  scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs
  actions on a scale of good or evil intentions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In my opinion the effort of Nietzche of splitting the world in a dichotomy is really interesting for science and applied psychology. Since, <strong><em>if the master morality, doesn't have to deal with empathy</em></strong> it should follow that it's more <strong><em>based on competition</em></strong>.</p>

<p>So it should be really useful for describing the <strong>beliefs of nations like Japan, USA or China</strong> (competitive, less assistentialistic) while the slave morality should fit more countries with a strong influence of church.</p>

<p><strong>Did someone continue the studies of Nietzche from a Psychological point of view?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T21:05:00.057Z
I've edited the question. Hope now it's better. However a short comment on what is bad of this question would help me to revise it!
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T21:15:20.337Z
Does not seem to address psychology - what psychological point of view would one be looking for?
theMayer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T21:49:54.763Z
@rmayer06: I don't have an academic background, so I can be wrong, but in my opinion the psychological impact of this two kind of morality seems to me to be very big. You can also have a look to this question to better understand what I mean: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5984/could-an-ethic-stating-that-everyone-should-care-about-himself-go-into-justifyin any further advice will be appreciated.
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T05:31:34.877Z
@rmayer06: moral psychology, values, and psychological well-being are all domains of active research. They're pretty large areas, actually...so it might be nice to narrow down this question somewhat. Maybe one Nietzsche idea at a time?
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T10:11:09.730Z
@NickStauner: I've tried to split the question into subquestions since I don't know the psychological words used for referring to Nietzche's thought. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/6028/which-personality-trait-have-nice-people
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T13:37:05.307Z
@Revious your question doesn't make much sense to me. The way something could be classified as "unhealthy" in this context would be to recognize it as a symptom of a mental illness. To my knowledge, no illness is defined by holding a certain moral (or personal, or other type) value. Even if you look at personality disorders like narcisissm, a symptom is to have an inappropriately high amount of pride in oneself; the pride itself is not a symptom, and all people have it in some amount.
rumtscho
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T13:40:24.027Z
@rumtscho: also have a look at the original question before any editing..
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T13:45:09.070Z
@Revious I am not planning to edit your question. But if you think that the new title is a *different* question (and it seems to me to be so), you can re-edit, or roll it back, to attain your original meaning. (Unless the original was off topic and somebody edited it in order to save it from closing, but as far as I can tell, this is not the case here).
rumtscho
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T15:23:25.260Z
@rumtscho: I've tried to roll it back..
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T19:37:54.117Z
@rumtscho: I'm not sure where you saw "unhealthy" or what you're paraphrasing with this word, but FWIW, there are other ways to discuss health in a moral context. As I've said elsewhere, narcissism isn't only a disorder; it can also refer to a trait that all people have in some amount, much like pride. As such, there may not be clear, discrete boundaries between health and illness. There are many unhealthy things I would hesitate to call pathological. One way to demonstrate this is by correlating a variable with psychological well-being. A negative correlation could indicate it is unhealthy.
Nick Stauner
<social-psychology>
Modern name for the two kind of ethics proposed by Nietzche
Revious
# Modern name for the two kind of ethics proposed by Nietzche

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-18)

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality>

> Nietzsche argued that there were *two fundamental types of morality*:
> '**Master morality**' and '**slave morality**'. **Slave** morality **values things
> like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values
> pride, strength, and nobility**. Master morality weighs actions on a
> scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs
> actions on a scale of good or evil intentions.

In my opinion the effort of Nietzche of splitting the world in a dichotomy is really interesting for science and applied psychology. Since, ***if the master morality, doesn't have to deal with empathy*** it should follow that it's more ***based on competition***.

So it should be really useful for describing the **beliefs of nations like Japan, USA or China** (competitive, less assistentialistic) while the slave morality should fit more countries with a strong influence of church.

**Did someone continue the studies of Nietzche from a Psychological point of view?**

**Tags:** social-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I've edited the question. Hope now it's better. However a short comment on what is bad of this question would help me to revise it!  
> **username_1**: Does not seem to address psychology - what psychological point of view would one be looking for?  
> **username_0**: @rmayer06: I don't have an academic background, so I can be wrong, but in my opinion the psychological impact of this two kind of morality seems to me to be very big. You can also have a look to this question to better understand what I mean: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5984/could-an-ethic-stating-that-everyone-should-care-about-himself-go-into-justifyin any further advice will be appreciated.  
> **username_2**: @rmayer06: moral psychology, values, and psychological well-being are all domains of active research. They're pretty large areas, actually...so it might be nice to narrow down this question somewhat. Maybe one Nietzsche idea at a time?  
> **username_0**: @NickStauner: I've tried to split the question into subquestions since I don't know the psychological words used for referring to Nietzche's thought. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/6028/which-personality-trait-have-nice-people  
> **username_3**: @username_0 your question doesn't make much sense to me. The way something could be classified as "unhealthy" in this context would be to recognize it as a symptom of a mental illness. To my knowledge, no illness is defined by holding a certain moral (or personal, or other type) value. Even if you look at personality disorders like narcisissm, a symptom is to have an inappropriately high amount of pride in oneself; the pride itself is not a symptom, and all people have it in some amount.  
> **username_0**: @username_3: also have a look at the original question before any editing..  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I am not planning to edit your question. But if you think that the new title is a *different* question (and it seems to me to be so), you can re-edit, or roll it back, to attain your original meaning. (Unless the original was off topic and somebody edited it in order to save it from closing, but as far as I can tell, this is not the case here).  
> **username_0**: @username_3: I've tried to roll it back..  
> **username_2**: @username_3: I'm not sure where you saw "unhealthy" or what you're paraphrasing with this word, but FWIW, there are other ways to discuss health in a moral context. As I've said elsewhere, narcissism isn't only a disorder; it can also refer to a trait that all people have in some amount, much like pride. As such, there may not be clear, discrete boundaries between health and illness. There are many unhealthy things I would hesitate to call pathological. One way to demonstrate this is by correlating a variable with psychological well-being. A negative correlation could indicate it is unhealthy.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2014-03-19. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

According to this answer: <https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/6030/4425> I would say that Nietzche's moralities can be classified according to the research on universal values made by [Schwartz (1992)](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z9vHEy0osBAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=schwartz+1992+universals&ots=Pfwwi1iYfG&sig=JKPk-oPl_9n8ccKgKro-9jIcaM0#v=onepage&q=schwartz%201992%20universals&f=false) on [universal values](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_values#Psychology_and_the_search_for_universal_values)

The **slave morality** deals with: Benevolence, universalism, and to some extent tradition

The **master morality** deals with: power and achievement

The researches seems to suggest what Nietzche was suggesting: **the two morality are diverging**.

> **benevolence** mostly relates to **agreeableness**   
> **universalism** to **openness**  
> and **traditionalism** to **agreeableness** and a few facets of other traits.
>
> **power** relates *negatively* to **agreeableness** and **openness**  
> **Achievement** relates to certain facets of **extraversion**,
> **conscientiousness**, and (*negatively*:) **agreeableness**.

Feel free to improve my answer

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: I would be very weary of connecting concepts from different theories to each other just because they seem to have a similar meaning when you squint at their definitions the right way. When you test such a theory empirically, it frequently fails. I have read books which see this kind of reasoning as a bias, search for "representativeness heuristic" and "representativeness bias".  
> **username_0**: @username_3: I lack of theoretical background, but I think that it could be really difficult to trace down a correlation between different classification, however I see an academical utility in this kind of effort. For sure it's easy to make mistakes, but it can be a thought to start further thinking.  
> **username_2**: FWIW, I agree for the most part (and I'm an existential psychologist by specialty who wrote the linked answer on values). While @username_3's precautions are wise, username_0' point is fair IMO, and the answer is probably close to the mark. Nietzsche's theories of motivation make prominent reference to the [will to power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power) as an overarching theory, so a failure to correlate advocacy of his moral system to power valuation would be rather baffling. Since he opposed the slave morality and religious values, benevolence and traditionalism probably fit well.  
> **username_0**: @NickStauner: if you have time I would also be curious of your ideas on these two questions: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5997/increasing-the-quantity-of-something-which-is-initially-good-will-always-lead-to and http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5984/could-an-ethic-stating-that-everyone-should-care-about-himself-go-into-justifyin  

---

