Nietzsche takes a fascinating look at judgments of good and bad in aphorism 32 of Genealogy of Morals. He tells us that as moral thought progresses we move from consequence centric morality to a genealogy based one. Is this true or is this Just Nietzsche’s way of exalting his preferred mode of interpretation?
Nietzsche points out the ease by which consequence is adopted as a tool to interpret value or lack thereof. It requires base level reasoning to understand a causal affect. With its broad applicability across culture and time, why then is this not tenable in the modern era? Because it is retroactive! To judge an action based on its consequence induces latency to our equation. The modern world needs to make pronouncements now; the world does not wait. What may work in the East does not translate to the West. This is especially pertinent to Nietzsche who can’t stand the retroactive nature when he is proactively working on new morality.
What then can replace this flawed concept? An origins based mechanism to value actions! Relying on the true nature and pedigree of the action is a better approach. This takes a higher level of rationality, making it not apparent at first how it could have been so widely adopted. Nietzsche claims this was through the dominance of aristocratic values. The wealthy and powerful place an excessive value on a their genealogy. The poor looking towards their superiors would seek to mimic such thought, ushering in a new era.
With a judgement based on origin instead of consequence we can finally “know thyself”. This is where Aphorism 32 fits into Nietzsche’s continual theme of the individual. Genealogy brings us back to our roots. It informs us of our action’s nature / intention. The ability to know one’s self is thus inseparably tied to how we judge our actions.