The second treatise in in the genealogy of morality: Nietzsche on the origin of the bad conscience

European Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):55–81 (2001)
Mathias Risse
Harvard University
On a postcard to Franz Overbeck from January 4, 1888, Nietzsche makes some illuminating remarks with respect to the three treatises in his book On the Genealogy of Morality.2 Nietzsche says that, ‘for the sake of clarity, it was necessary artificially to isolate the different roots of that complex structure that is called morality. Each of these three treatises expresses a single primum mobile; a fourth and fifth are missing, as is even the most essential (‘the herd instinct’) – for the time being, the latter had to be ignored, as too comprehensive, and the same holds for the ultimate summation of all those different elements and thus a final account of morality.’ Nietzsche also points out that each treatise makes a contribution to the genesis of Christianity and rejects an explanation of Christianity in terms of only one psychological category. The topics of the treatises are ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (first treatise), the ‘bad conscience’ (second), and the ‘ascetic ideal’ (third). The postcard suggests that Nietzsche discusses these topics separately because a joint treatment is too complicated, but that in reality, these ideas are inextricably intertwined, both with each other and with others that Nietzsche omits. Therefore, the three treatises should be regarded as parts of a unified theory and critique of morality. Nietzsche’s remarks on that postcard are important because in the Genealogy itself, he makes little effort to show the unity among the treatises. We shall return to this postcard repeatedly.3 The first treatise has attracted most scholarly attention, but much less work has been done on the second treatise, ‘ “Debts”, “Bad Conscience”, and Related Matters’. This is unfortunate, since it seems that, in Nietzsche’s own view, the central notion of the second treatise, namely, the bad conscience as a feeling of guilt, is a key element of Christian morality. Therefore, understanding Nietzsche’s treatment of this notion is essential to understanding his views on Christianity and the impact of the Christian heritage on non-religious moral philosophy..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/1468-0378.00130
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,010
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Nietzsche on Guilt: Dependency, Debt, and Imperfection.Iain Morrisson - 2018 - European Journal of Philosophy 26 (3):974-990.
The Relation Between Sovereignty and Guilt in Nietzsche's Genealogy.Gabriel Zamosc - 2012 - European Journal of Philosophy 20 (S1):E107-e142.
A Contribuição de Nietzsche Para a Ética.Maudemarie Clark - 2017 - Cadernos Nietzsche 38 (3):181-203.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total downloads
202 ( #26,360 of 2,275,221 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #218,094 of 2,275,221 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature