History, Genealogy, Nietzsche: Comments on Jesse Prinz, “Genealogies of Morals: Nietzsche's Method Compared”

Abstract

Jesse Prinz contrasts Nietzsche's way of historicizing morals with the approaches of utilitarians and Marxist-materialists, and does so to good effect. Against a background of substantial agreement on most of what Prinz argues for, I elucidate a significant shortcoming of his interpretation of Nietzschean genealogy: namely, its reliance on a simplistic understanding of how and why Nietzsche integrates historical hypotheses about how morality emerged and developed with critical warnings about where it seems to be headed. Using Nietzsche's teasing remarks about “the English psychologists” in the opening sections of GM I as a foil, I develop an account of the difference between a simple history of morals and a true, Nietzschean genealogy of morals that does a better job than Prinz does here of achieving his stated goal of identifying the advantages of Nietzsche's genealogy of morals over the utilitarian and Marxist-materialist versions.

The Passive Body and States of Nature: An Examination of the Methodological Role State of Nature Theory Plays in Williams and Nietzsche

“…The upshot of Williams' approach in contradistinction to other readings is that Nietzsche's Genealogy exposes the contradictory nature of Christian morality writ large. He is not merely providing an alternative perspective or a more warranted account of the same phenomenon as the traditional interpretation has it (For truthful readings of Nietzsche's Genealogy, i.e., the standard account, see: (Owen 2002(Owen , 2007Leiter 2002;Lightbody, 2019;Taylor 1984;Conway 1994Conway , 2008Morrisson 2014;Migotti 2006Migotti , 2016. I conclude my analysis by demonstrating how William's functional account is immune to the three criticisms I mentioned above.…”

“…218-19;Prinz 2016, p. 194). Although Prinz's objections, it should be noted, are ably and directly answered by (Migotti 2016) and indirectly by (Lightbody 2019), if one accepts Prinz's interpretation of genealogy, as a method of historical reconstruction, it is an easy task of discovering evidence that does not support Nietzsche's contentions. Thus, an alternative way to respond to the thrust of the "Just So" objection must be tried.…”

Artificial and Unconscious Selection in Nietzsche’s Genealogy: Expectorating the Poisoned Pill of the Lamarckian Reading

“…(p. 219). Mark Migotti's recent article, Migotti (2016) shows, brilliantly, that Prinz misread badly the first and second essays of the Genealogy. Migotti claims, "Prinz's mistaken identification of the slave revolt in morality with the emergence of the Christian religion leads him to think that he is improving on Nietzsche, when in fact he is simply following suit .…”