Is There a Genetic Fallacy in Nietzsches Genealogy of Morals? by Paul S.

Loeb

My title- uestion ty!ically arises in res!onse to Nietzsches fa"ous !refatory #e"an# for $a critique of "oral %alues&' $the value of these values is itself to be called into question for the first time(an# for that there is nee#e# a )no*le#ge of the con#itions an# circu"stances out of *hich they gre*+ un#er *hich they e%ol%e# an# change#& ,GM P'-.. ,/. 0le1an#er Neha"as+ ha%ing uote# this sentence+ sets out to $#eter"ine if an# ho* the in%estigation of the #escent ,Herkunft. of "oral %alues can affect our o*n e%aluation of the "oral !oint of %ie*.2,3. Granting Nietzsches i#entification of the "oral !oint of %ie* *ith altruis" or selflessness+ he co""ents as follo*s u!on Nietzsches clai" $that this connection 4bet*een goo#ness an# altruis"5 is the s!ecific creation of the sla%e re%olt in "orality&' No* Nietzsches %ie* of the origin of our current %alues+ e%en if it is correct+ #oes not sho* that *e shoul# not i#entify goo#ness *ith altruis" or utility. Nothing is ob6ectionable si"!ly because it has an ob6ectionable origin. 7a# Nietzsche "a#e this argu"ent he *oul# in#ee# ha%e been+ as he so"eti"es see"s to be+ guilty of falling into the genetic fallacy+ *hich a"ounts to confusing the origin of so"ething *ith its nature or %alue. 8ut Nietzsche is uite a*are that such an argu"ent is unacce!table' he hi"self e1!oses it in section 9:; of The Gay Science ... 7is argu"ent+ as *e shall see+ is in any case "ore subtle an# "ore co"!licate#. ,9. In this !assage Neha"as su""arizes a !re%alent strategy for countering the charge of a genetic fallacy in Nietzsches genealogy of "orality' In fact+ ,/. Nietzsche #oes not clai" that his genealogical results !ro%e the #is%alue of altruistic %alues< of course+ ,3. if Nietzsche ha# clai"e# this+ he *oul# ha%e to a#"it co""itting the genetic fallacy< but+ ,9. Nietzsche hi"self e1!oses the unacce!tability of such an argu"ent.,:. In *hat follo*s+ I *ill argue that each of these clai"s is false+ an# that the a!!roach they e"bo#y is therefore "isgui#e#. Instea#+ I *ill suggest+ although *e "ust conce#e that Nietzsche #oes "a)e the less subtle an# co"!licate# argu"ent in uestion+ he is thereby in a !osition to re!ly that the genetic-fallacy charge begs the uestion of %alue he clai"s to !ose for the first ti"e. I To begin *ith+ Neha"as i"!licit suggestion that Nietzsche #oes not inten# to "a)e the )in# of argu"ent he criticizes see"s sufficiently refute# by the !refatory #e"an# he uotes. For here Nietzsche ob%iously announces his intention to e%aluate(or "ore !recisely+ since he *rites of a $criti ue& an# $calling into uestion+& to devaluate( "oral %alues on the basis of their origins. =r+ *e "ight loo) instea# at Nietzsches !reli"inary scorn for the utilitarian genealogy of $an e%aluation of *hich the higher "an has hitherto been !rou#&' $This !ri#e should be hu"ble#+ this e%aluation #e%alue#' is that achie%e#?& ,GM I'3.. In any case+ Neha"as #oubt that Nietzsche "a)es this argu"ent !robably ste"s fro" a "ore !lausible !uzzle"ent as to how he "a)es it. 0lthough this uestion is ne%er e1!licitly a##resse# in the Genealogy+ I belie%e *e can ans*er it by loo)ing closely at t*o as!ects of Nietzsches ter"inology there.

The first of these+ note# by Michel Foucault+ is Nietzsches ne* e"!hasis in Genealogy on the notion of $#escent& ,Herkunft+ Abkunft. as the )in# of $origin& ,Ursprung. that is rele%ant to an e%aluation of "oral %alues.,;. This ter"inological shift is "eant to a!!eal+ I thin)+ to the aristocratic or noble $"o#e of %aluation& 4Werthungsweise5 Nietzsche outlines in the first essay of the Genealogy. 0ccor#ing to this stan#ar#+ uestions of %alue or legiti"acy are al*ays #eci#e# by an in uiry into fa"ily !e#igree+ lineage+ or here#ity. Thus+ Nietzsche !oints for instance to the ancient Gree) e"!hasis on the goo#ness of the $*ell-born& ,Wohlgeborenen.+ the $highborn& ,edelb rtig. ,GM I'/>.+ an# those of $noble #escent& ,edlen Abkunft. ,GM II'39.(as contraste# *ith the ba#ness of the ill-born+ the lo*-born+ an# those of co""on #escent. Meta!horically+ therefore+ an# in or#er to #eter"ine their %alue fro" an aristocratic !oint of %ie*+ Nietzsche in%estigates the #escent of "oral %alues consi#ere# as offs!ring or !rogeny of their creators. 7a%ing #isco%ere# their ignoble origins+ he conclu#es that altruistic %alues are $ba#& in the aristocratic sense(that is+ base+ !itiable an# conte"!tible.,-. The secon# rele%ant as!ect of Nietzsche ter"inology is his use of the ter" $genealogy& ,Genealogie.(a use *hich+ unli)e that of the ter"s $Herkunft& an# $Abkunft+& is un!rece#ente# in his earlier *ritings.,?. In the *or)s Nietzsche lists as antici!ating his conclusions in the Genealogy! he *rites instea# of the $history& ,Historie+ Geschichte. of "orality an# %alues. 0gain+ I thin) *e "ay see Nietzsches ne* ter" as coine# to in#icate the e%aluati%e #i"ension of his !ro6ect. Literally+ of course+ a $genealogy& is a )in# of $history& of fa"ily !e#igrees+ an# it is use# to #eter"ine the legiti"acy or %alue of a !erson by tracing his line of #escent. 0lthough Nietzsche #oes not e1!lain this !recise connotation+ a re%ie* of his corres!on#ence #uring the !lanning+ co"!osition+ an# co"!letion of the Genealogy sho*s his o%erla!!ing concern *ith re!lying+ in a $genealogischen "oti#+& to the archi%e #irector @.0. 7ugo 8ur)har#ts uery for a $$amiliengeschichte& that *oul# #eter"ine *hether Nietzsches gran#"other *as the $Muthgen& "entione# in Goethes #iaries.,A. That Nietzsche regar#e# the infor"ation he su!!lie# fro" an aristocratic !oint of %ie* is su!!orte# by its incor!oration in his later autobiogra!hical account of #escent fro" nobility ,B7 I'9..,C. Meta!horically a!!lie# to altruistic %alues+ therefore+ Nietzsches notion of genealogy is "eant to suggest the history of !lebeian ancestry that !ro%es their #is%alue fro" an aristocratic stan#!oint. I *oul# li)e to !ro!ose+ then+ that in selecting an# e"!hasizing the aristocratically e%aluati%e ter"s $Herkunft& an# $Genealogie+& Nietzsche *as in#icating !recisely ho* he "eant to argue fro" the origin of altruistic %alues to their #is%alue. Gi%en Nietzsches a#%ocacy of first-or#er aristocratic e%aluation throughout the Genealogy+ *e shoul# not be sur!rise# to see its "eta!horical e1tension built into his #e"an# for a criti ue of "oral %alues.,/>. In#ee#+ Neha"as hi"self re"in#s us of Nietzsches !ositi%e attitu#e to*ar# the noble "o#e of %aluation. 0s !roof of this+ he cites Nietzsches uery at the en# of the first essay of Genealogy as to *hether flaring u! the ancient fire is not !recisely that *hich shoul# be #esire#+ *ille# an# !ro"ote# *ith all ones "ight ,GM I'?.. 0n# against Dalter Eauf"anns contention that $Nietzsches o*n ethic is beyon# both "aster an# sla%e "orality+& Neha"as cites Nietzsches conclu#ing line of that sa"e essay' $4I5t has long been sufficiently clear *hat I will+ *hat I *ill !recisely *ith that #angerous slogan that is *ritten on the trun) of "y last boo)' F%eyond Good and &vil ... 0t least this #oes not "ean F8eyon# Goo# an# 8a#.$ ,GM I'/?.. Fro" this Neha"as infers that for Nietzsche $to be beyon# goo# an# e%il cannot therefore be to lea%e behin# the "o#e of %aluation that characterizes the

barbarian nobles&< an# he conclu#es that $Nietzsche acce!ts the "o#e of %aluation that characterizes the nobles of 'n the Genealogy of (orals.&,//. Perha!s+ ho*e%er+ Neha"as failure to conce!tualize Nietzsches secon#-or#er aristocratic argu"ent is #ue to his !erce!tion of its fallaciousness+ an# it is to this issue I turn ne1t.,/3. II Su!!osing for the sa)e of argu"ent that the te1t of the Genealogy forces us to gi%e u! ,/.+ are *e then oblige# to hol# ,3.? Is Nietzsche boun# to ac)no*le#ge a genetic fallacy in his genealogical #e%aluation of altruistic "orality? Let "e begin by noting *hy the ans*er "ay be regar#e# as rele%ant not only to our assess"ent of Nietzsches genealogy of "orality+ but also of the genetic fallacy itself. It *oul# be easy to infer fro" Neha"as !resentation that the attribution of genetic fallacy is a !erennial one+ roote# in the stu#y of logical fallacies+ an# #e%elo!e# uite in#e!en#ently of Nietzsches !ro6ect. Sur!risingly+ it is none of these things. In the first !lace+ the only sense in *hich this charge "ay be sai# to belong to the #isci!line of logic is the successful role that it !laye# in the late nineteenth-century effort to institute a #e!sychologize# conce!tion of logic.,/9. Secon#+ although the *arning against confusing origin an# %alue has its roots in that !erio#s re%olt against historicis" an# !sychologis"+ the actual !hrase $genetic fallacy& *as not coine# until /C/:.,/:. Finally+ an# "ost i"!ortantly+ the !hrase #i# not beco"e an influential ter" of art until /C9A+ *hen it *as intro#uce# to characterize *hat *as *i#ely regar#e# as an e!iste"ological "ista)e of the ne*ly for"e# #isci!line+ $sociology of )no*le#ge& 4Wissensso#iologie5.,/;. 8ut it *as in fact the sociological as!ect of Nietzsches genealogy of "orality that ins!ire# the foun#ers of this latter #isci!line in their thin)ing about the relation bet*een origin an# %alue.,/-. In su"+ the charge of a genetic fallacy *as #e!loye# %ery recently+ outsi#e of logic !ro!er+ an# at least in !art to co"bat the influence of Nietzsches genealogy of "orality.,/?. 0lthough these historical !oints #o not absol%e Nietzsche of the charge+ they #o ser%e to suggest its #isguise# or forgotten !artisan nature. Ne1t I *ant to outline a Nietzschean res!onse+ base# on the sa"e conten#e# sociological as!ect+ that attributes to this charge a "ore #ebilitating bias. The )ey to this res!onse lies+ I belie%e+ in Nietzsches brief account as to *hy his $fun#a"ental insight& into "oral genealogy *as arri%e# at so late. It *as the fault+ he *rites+ of $the retar#ing influence e1ercise# by the #e"ocratic !re6u#ice in the "o#ern *orl# to*ar# all uestions of #escent&(a !re6u#ice he associates *ith $the plebeianism of the "o#ern s!irit& ,GM I':.. 8y thus noting the o!!osition of "o#ern #e"ocracy or !lebeianis" to uestions of #escent+ Nietzsche is !ointing again to the aristocratically e%aluati%e sense of the ter" $#escent.& @ertainly+ this sense of the ter" is at sta)e in Nietzsches fun#a"ental insight itself+ accor#ing to *hich literal hu"an #escent is an ancestral conce!t of the antithesis $goo# an# ba#.& 8ut the conte1t of Nietzsches re"ar) sho*s that he thin)s this sense is also in%ol%e# in his uestion regar#ing the "eta!horical #escent of the conce!t $goo#&(a uestion that begins "oral genealogy+ an# is instantiate# by the ety"ological uestion that le# to his fun#a"ental insight. 0ccor#ingly+ Nietzsches res!onse to the genetic-fallacy charge against this secon#or#er uestion *oul# be that it is !re6u#ice# by *hat he calls $the "orality of the co""on "an& ,GM I' C.(that is+ by a !lebeian "o#e of %aluation+ born out of a re%olt against nobility+ an# concerne# es!ecially to #eny the latters ty!ical inference fro" here#ity to %alue.

In thus alleging socio-!olitical bias behin# the genetic-fallacy charge+ Nietzsche *oul# be ai"ing of course to e1!ose the !retense of logic suggeste# by the ter" $fallacy.&,/A. This i#eological strategy is in#icate# by his Genealogy analysis of the counterfeiting+ e%en self-#ecei%ing+ "achinations re uire# for a successful $sla%e re%olt in "orality.&,/C. 8ut it is !erha!s best su!!orte# by his *ell-)no*n #iscussion of the !roble" of Socrates in Twilight of the )dols.,3>. For Nietzsche is concerne# there to trace Socrates use of #ialectic bac) to his !lebeian #escent an# conse uent ressentiment against 0thenian nobility. 0ccor#ing to Nietzsche+ Socrates syllogis"s are his *ea!on of re%olt+ an# the "eans by *hich !lebs co"e to the to!. 8ut Socrates hi"self+ as re!resente# by Plato in the early #ialogues+ ta)es great #ialectical !ains to refute the %ie* that goo#ness is #e!en#ent on birth or ancestry. It is !lausible+ therefore+ that Nietzsche *oul# ha%e regar#e# the charge of a genetic $fallacy& as one "ore #ialectical tool for consoli#ating the re%aluation of aristocratic %alues begun by Socrates. @hallenge# in this *ay to su!!ort their "ere assertion of fallacy+ an# #enie# their i"!licit a!!eal to logic+ Neha"as an# others *oul# !robably !ress their charge against Nietzsches !ro6ect as follo*s. Surely+ they *oul# argue+ there is no #e"ocratic bias behin# the clai" that the %alue of our current altruistic "orality cannot be #eter"ine# by in%estigating its origins. For e%en conce#ing any allegation of its original baseness+ the !assage of ti"e since then has allo*e# for the )in# of change that "ight ha%e i"!ro%e# its %alue. George Morgan su""arizes this argu"ent+ an# e%en attributes it to Nietzsche hi"self+ *hen he *rites' $4Nietzsche5 asserts *ith s!ecial e"!hasis that a genetic account of "orality is not the sa"e as an e%aluation of it' its !resent *orth is uite #istinct fro" that of its beginnings.&,3/. Si"ilarly+ Neha"as+ ha%ing #efine# the genetic fallacy as $confusing the origin of so"ething *ith its nature or %alue+& #escribes the %ie* that an institutions origin can by itself e1!lain its nature as a $correlati%e i#ea& of the "ista)en %ie* $that institutions regularly arise in the for" in *hich *e no* )no* the".& @iting Nietzsches #iscussion of the history of !unish"ent ,GM II'/3-/:.+ Neha"as e1!lains *hy Nietzsche #enies the latter %ie*' Barlier "o#es of %aluation ... *ere a!!ro!riate#+ re%erse#+ reinter!rete#+ an# trans!ose# in or#er to fabricate the general syste" accor#ing to *hich "ost li%es to#ay are or#ere#. The *orst assu"!tion a genealogist can "a)e is to thin) that the !resent !ur!ose an# significance of these o!erations+ their en# !ro#uct+ *as the factor that brought the" about in the beginning.,33. @learly+ then+ this a!!eal to Nietzsches o*n "etho#ological !rinci!le is su!!ose# to e1!lain *hy the genetic fallacy is a fallacy' that is+ *hy a things origin can ne%er by itself e1!lain its nature or value. This is *hy Neha"as *rites that $Nietzsches %ie* of the origin of our current %alues+ e%en if it is correct+ #oes not sho* that *e shoul# not i#entify goo#ness *ith altruis".& Fro" Nietzsches stan#!oint+ ho*e%er+ this e1!lanation *oul# still be ob%iously influence# by the "o#ern #e"ocratic !re6u#ice to*ar# all uestions of #escent(this ti"e+ to*ar# the further aristocratic 6u#g"ent that !eo!le cannot change o%er ti"e an# are therefore unable to transcen# their origins. Nietzsche hi"self en#orses this 6u#g"ent in the section of %eyond Good and &vil #e%ote# to the uestion+ $Dhat is Noble?&',39. $It is si"!ly not !ossible that a hu"an being shoul# not ha%e in his bo#y the ualities an# !references of his !arents an# ancestors' *hate%er a!!earances "ay suggest to the

contrary& ,8GB 3-:..,3:. It is only a "o#ern ,self-.#ece!tion+ he *rites further+ to belie%e that the original baseness conferre# by lo*ly birth can be i"!ro%e# through e#ucation an# culture' $In our %ery !o!ular+ that is to say !lebeian age+ Ge#ucation an# Gculture must be essentially the art of #ecei%ing(of #ecei%ing about #escent+ the inherite# !lebs in bo#y an# soul. ... FPlebs usque recurret& ,8GB 3-:..,3;. Translate#+ therefore+ to his Genealogy %ie* of altruistic "orality as a t*o thousan# year-ol# %ictorious sla%e re%olt born in Hu#ea+ Nietzsches aristocratic #eter"inis" lea#s hi" to re6ect the clai" attribute# to hi" abo%e that this "orality can transcen# its roots an# a!!reciate ,GM I'?-C..,3-. This is *hy he *rites+ for instance+ of the recurring !lebeian ressentiment in the life-history of the %alue $goo# an# e%il&' There *as+ to be sure+ in the Ienaissance an uncanny an# glittering rea*a)ening of the classical i#eal+ of the noble "o#e of e%aluating all things ... but Hu#ea i""e#iately triu"!he# again+ than)s to that thoroughly !lebeian ,Ger"an an# Bnglish. ressentiment "o%e"ent calle# the Iefor"ation ... In an e%en "ore #ecisi%e an# !rofoun# sense Hu#ea triu"!he# once again o%er the classical i#eal *ith the French Ie%olution' the last !olitical nobility that e1iste# in Buro!e+ that of the $rench se%enteenth an# eighteenth century+ colla!se# beneath the !o!ular instincts of ressentiment ... ,GM I'/-. Nor *ill it hel!+ finally+ to cite Nietzsches o*n "etho#ological !rinci!le on behalf of this attribution. For a closer loo) sho*s that this a!!eal #e!en#s u!on an i"!ortant+ an# co""on+ "isinter!retation.,3?. Nietzsche #oes not *rite that a genealogist shoul# ne%er !ro6ect the current or present !ur!oses of so"ething bac) into its origin+ but that he shoul# ne%er !ro6ect bac) any of its !ur!oses at all.,3A. The reason+ he e1!lains+ is that so"ething "ust alrea#y e1ist+ ha%ing so"eho* co"e into being+ in or#er to be gi%en e%en its first !ur!ose.,3C. @ertainly+ as Neha"as accurately re!orts+ Nietzsche thin)s all such i"!ose# goals ,"eanings+ functions+ utilities. are flui# because they are then constantly being a!!ro!riate#+ re%erse#+ reinter!rete#+ an# trans!ose#. 8ut that is !recisely *hy he *arns that the genealogist shoul# search instea# for the relati%ely en#uring origin that ante#ates an# lies outsi#e the entire s!here of that things !ur!oses. ,9>. 0!!lying this !rinci!le to the institution of altruistic "orality+ Nietzsche conclu#es that no set of i"!ose# !ur!oses can e%er change or erase its #e%aluing !lebeian #escent. ,9/. 0ccor#ing to Nietzsche+ it is only by conflating #escent an# utility that !re%ious historians ha%e !ro6ecte# bac) teleological change an# thereby #ecei%e# the"sel%es regar#ing the !ossibility of a genealogical change in altruistic "orality. III I turn lastly to ,9.+ the clai" that Nietzsche hi"self e1!oses as unacce!table the argu"ent that altruistic "orality is ob6ectionable si"!ly because it has an ob6ectionable origin. In su!!ort of this clai"+ Neha"as cites Ja%i# 7oys suggestion that Nietzsche "entions $the "etho#ological !roble" of the genetic fallacy& in the follo*ing re"ar) fro" Section 9:; of The Gay Science',93. $0 "orality coul# e%en ha%e gro*n out of an error' e%en *ith this insight the !roble" of its %alue *oul# not once be touche#.&,99. Iichar# Schacht+ *ho also cites this re"ar)+ a##s Nietzsches !arenthetical obser%ation a little earlier in the Section that $a history of the origin of these 4"oral5 feelings an# %aluations& is $so"ething other than a criti ue of the".&,9:. Dhat this "eans+ accor#ing to Schacht+ is that Nietzsches $re%aluation of %alues only begins+ an# #oes not en#+ *ith in uiry into their genealogy&,9;.(a rea#ing he su!!orts *ith the follo*ing conte"!oraneous "achlass re"ar)'

The uestion regar#ing the #escent of our %aluations an# tables of goo# absolutely #oes not coinci#e *ith their criti ue+ as is so often belie%e#' e%en though the insight into so"e pudenda origo certainly brings *ith it the feeling of a #i"inution in %alue of the thing that originate# thus an# !re!ares the *ay to a critical "oo# an# attitu#e against it. ,9-. Passages li)e these+ Schacht e1!lains+ sho* *hy Nietzsches !refatory #e"an# in the Genealogy #oes not co""it the genetic fallacy' a )no*le#ge of the con#itions an# circu"stances out of *hich "oral %alues gre* is not su!!ose# to settle+ but only !re!are the *ay for their criti ue.,9?. 0s confir"ation+ Schacht notes Nietzsches #is"issi%e !refatory co""ent that his real concern+ the %alue of "orality+ $*as so"ething "uch "ore i"!ortant than 4his5 o*n or so"eone elses hy!othesizing about the origin of "orality& ,GM P';..,9A. 0lthough I agree *ith these co""entators that the e%i#ence asse"ble# abo%e concerns the genetic fallacy+ I thin) it !ro%es instea# Nietzsches co"!lete una*areness of this $"etho#ological !roble".& The reason is that in all these !assages Nietzsche is re!roaching !re%ious thin)ers for ha%ing in%estigate# the origin of "orality in such a *ay that the !roble" of its %alue *oul# ne%er really be touche#. S!ecifically+ he charges+ !re%ious histories of the origin of "orality *ere not critical because "orality *as !recisely that u!on *hich e%eryone agree#. $It is e%i#ent+& he *rites at the start of Gay Science 9:;+ that u! to no* "orality *as no !roble" at all< rather+ !recisely that on *hich after all "istrust+ #iscor#+ an# contra#iction one agree# *ith one another+ the hallo*e# !lace of !eace *here thin)ers reste#+ breathe#+ re%i%e# e%en fro" the"sel%es. I see nobo#y *ho #are# a critique of "oral %alue-6u#g"ents. ... I ha%e scarcely #etecte# a fe* "eager !reli"inary efforts to bring forth a history of the origin of these feelings an# %aluations ,*hich is so"ething other than a criti ue of the" .... In the later re"ar) cite# by 7oy+ Nietzsche is concerne# to refute the su!!osition of the "ore refine# a"ong the Bnglish historians of "orality that+ because they ha%e critici#ed the origin of "orality ,as erroneous.+ they ha%e thereby criticize# the "orality itself( that is+ its %alue. 8ut they ha%e not+ Nietzsche argues+ because they the"sel%es still stan# uite unsus!ectingly un#er the co""an# of a !articular "orality an# ser%e+ *ithout )no*ing it+ as its shiel#-bearers an# follo*ers< for e1a"!le+ by sharing that !o!ular su!erstition of @hristian Buro!e *hich is still al*ays so guilelessly re!eate#+ that *hat is characteristic of "oral action is selflessness+ self#enial+ self-sacrifice+ or sy"!athy+ !ity.,9C. The !oint of the re"ar) cite# by 7oy+ therefore+ is not to #eny the #e%aluati%e rele%ance of any critical insight into the origin of "orality+ but only of that critical insight influence# by an unsus!ecte# allegiance to the ,altruistic. "orality un#er in%estigation. ,:>. 0lthough the co""entators abo%e fail to notice it+ Nietzsche returns to #e%elo! the !oint of the Gay Science re"ar) at the start of the Genealogy.,:/. 7a%ing liste# $error& as the last ite" in the !ri"ary #eri%ation of Bnglish historians of "orality+ Nietzsche

e1!lains that by this he "eans the hy!othesis that+ ulti"ately+ unegoistic actions *ere erroneously thought to be so"ething goo# in the"sel%es ,GM I'3..,:3. In thus refining his suggestion that !ast historians clai"e# an insight into the gro*th of "orality out of an error+ Nietzsche also su!!orts his earlier allegation of !re6u#ice. For it is ob%ious+ he *rites no*+ that this $insight+& #es!ite its ostensibly critical "ention of $error+& is !art of an o%erall theory "eant to lin) the origin of the *or# Ggoo# $fro" the start an# by necessity to Funegoistic actions& ,GM I'3.. 0n# such a theory+ he charges+ is an unhistorical+ su!erstitious fabrication #esigne# si"!ly to su!!ort $an e%aluation of *hich the higher "an has hitherto been !rou# as though it *ere a )in# of !rerogati%e of "an as such& ,GM I'3.. 8y contrast+ he clai"s+ his o*n fun#a"ental insight into the gro*th of "orality is !art of a true+ #ocu"ente# an# confir"able history of "orality that is $inten#e# solely for the sa)e of& criticizing its %alue.,:9. In a !arenthetical asi#e+ Nietzsche e1!lains that this is "ore e1actly *hat he "eans by *riting that his real concern+ the %alue of "orality+ *as so"ething "uch "ore i"!ortant than his o*n or so"eone elses hy!othesizing about the origin of "orality ,GM P';.. Dhen Nietzsche re"ar)s in the "achlass+ therefore+ that the uestion regar#ing the #escent of our %aluations #oes not coinci#e *ith their criti ue+ he has in "in# !recisely those !re%ious Bnglish historians of "orality *ho su!!ose# that they ha# criticize# the %aluations si"!ly because they ha# criticize# their origin. This is !ro%e# by his characterization of the ans*er as an insight into so"e pudenda origo ,$sha"eful origin&.. For Nietzsche returns to this characterization in the Genealogy *hen he #escribes the Bnglish !sychologists ty!ical ans*ers of $habit& an# $forgetfulness& as insights into the e%olution of "orality out of so"e partie honteuse ,$sha"eful !art&. of our inner *orl# ,GM I'/.. I"!lie# in the "achlass re"ar)+ then+ is Nietzsches %ie* that this )in# of ans*er+ though certainly bringing *ith it a feeling of #i"inishe# %alue+ falls short of a criti ue because it is !art of a theory that is un*ittingly #esigne# to !ro"ote the %alue of altruistic "orality.,::. 8ut this account contra#icts Schachts assu"!tion that Nietzsche is here #escribing his o*n genealogical uestion an# ans*er. Instea#+ as his gratitu#e an# res!ect in Genealogy #e"onstrate+ Nietzsche "eans that the genealogical %alue-#i"inution of !re%ious thin)ers has !re!are# the *ay for his o*n genealogical criti ue. Fro" this it follo*s that Nietzsche is not in#icating any further e1tra-genealogical stage of re%aluation that *ill hel! his !refatory #e"an# a%oi# the charge of genetic fallacy' his )no*le#ge of the circu"stances out of *hich "oral %alues gre* is su!!ose# to settle an# en# their criti ue.,:;. Pro!erly inter!rete#+ therefore+ the e%i#ence consi#ere# abo%e not only fails to su!!ort ,9.+ but offers a##itional reasons for re6ecting ,/. an# ,3.. For in these !assages Nietzsche urges other "oral historians to aban#on their un*itting allegiance to altruistic "orality in or#er that their genealogical results shoul# genuinely !ro%e its #is%alue. 0gainst the charge that this reco""en#ation co""its the genetic fallacy+ I belie%e Nietzsche *oul# no* elaborate his earlier res!onse to inclu#e the suggestion that this charge is itself gui#e# by an unconscious #esire to safeguar# altruistic "orality fro" a genuine re%aluation. This elaboration is su!!orte# by Nietzsches focus on Bnglish historians of "orality+ together *ith his clai" in Genealogy that the !lebeianis" of the "o#ern s!irit $is of Bnglish #escent& an# has its $nati%e soil& in Bnglan# ,GM I':.. 7ere Nietzsche i"!lies+ that is+ that the influence of "o#ern Bnglish !lebeian i#eas ,es!ecially Jar*ins. hel!s to e1!lain the un*itting bias of !re%ious genealogists ,es!ecially IKe. to*ar#s the !lebeian-#escen#e# altruistic "orality.,:-. 8ut Nietzsche nee# not a!!eal to his genealogical hy!othesis regar#ing the birth of altruistic %alues out

of a !lebeian re%olt against nobility. 0ccor#ing to this "ini"al counter-charge+ those *ho fin# a genetic fallacy in his #e"an# for a criti ue are+ *ithout )no*ing it+ si"!ly assu"ing the secon#-or#er %alue they are challenge# to !ro%e. IV Su!!osing I ha%e in#ee# refute# ,/.+ ,3.+ an# ,9.+ let "e conclu#e *ith so"e general re"ar)s on the faile# inter!reti%e a!!roach e"bo#ie# in these clai"s. This a!!roach begins *ith the atte"!t to #eter"ine *hy Nietzsche thin)s a re%aluation of "oral %alues re uires their genealogy. Neha"as conclusion+ *i#ely share# by others+ is that Nietzsches genealogy #e"onstrates ho* "oral %alues are contingently create# by s!ecific ty!es of !eo!le *ith s!ecific !ur!oses at s!ecific ti"es an# !laces(thereby sub%erting their !retension to being necessary+ natural+ i"!artial+ ti"eless+ uni%ersa.,:?. Fro" this conclusion+ ho*e%er+ it follo*s that Nietzsches genealogy of "oral %alues cannot be inten#e# to !ro%e their #is%alue.,:A. For such a !roof *oul# re uire ignoring+ as Neha"as *rites+ $the s!ecific historical an# genealogical tangles that !ro#uce the contingent structures *e "ista)enly consi#er gi%en+ soli#+ an# e1ten#ing *ithout change into the future as *ell as into the !ast.&,:C. Since+ that is+ Nietzsches genealogy sho*s that "oral %alues are $sub6ect to history an# to change+ to a!!ro!riation an# "ani!ulation by !articular grou!s *ith !articular interests at #ifferent ti"es+& it *oul# be a genetic fallacy to su!!ose that the current %alue of these %alues is so"eho* #eter"ine# by their origin.,;>. In#ee#+ Nietzsche hi"self e1!oses this fallacy in the assu"!tion of his ri%al genealogists that $*e can #eter"ine *hat such institutions really ai" at+ *hat they really are+ an# *hat they al*ays ha%e been by tracing the" to their origins.&,;/. 0ccor#ingly+ although Neha"as sets out to e1!lain *hy Nietzsche in%estigates the #escent of "oral %alues in or#er to call their %alue into uestion+ his account co""its hi" to the %ie* that any such in%estigation is for Nietzsche strictly irrele%ant to their e%aluation. Thus inter!rete#+ Nietzsche hi"self fits the Gay Science characterization of !re%ious "oral genealogists *ho criticize# the origin of "orality *ithout criticizing "orality itself. My o*n a!!roach+ by contrast+ began *ith the #eter"ination that Nietzsches genealogy of "oral %alues !resu!!oses a "eta!horical e1tension of the noble "o#e of %aluation accor#ing to *hich %alue is al*ays inferre# fro" #escent. Gi%en his hy!othesis regar#ing the !lebeian #escent of "oral %alues+ Nietzsche clai"s his genealogy !ro%es that they are $ba#& in the aristocratic sense. Further+ Nietzsches aristocratic #eter"inis" !ersua#es hi" that these %alues re"ain base because their %ulgar origins cannot be change#. Fro" Socrates to Hu#ea to the Iefor"ation to the French Ie%olution to Bnglish Jar*inis"+ Nietzsche fin#s a recurrence of the !lebeian ressentiment that ga%e birth to the "oral %alues they hol# in co""on. Dith this in "in#+ Nietzsche re!ri"an#s !re%ious "oral genealogists(unconsciously influence# by "o#ern Bnglish !lebeianis"(for ha%ing in%ente# alternati%e+ an# changeable+ origins that *ere "eant to safeguar# "oral %alues fro" aristocratic criticis". 0ccor#ing to Nietzsche+ this !lebeian falsification flo*e# out of their !lebeian focus on the utilitarian as!ect of "oral %alues+ together *ith their !ro6ection of this flui# as!ect bac) into the origin of "oral %alues. Neha"as+ ho*e%er(in not allo*ing Nietzsche to recognize any other as!ect to "oral %alues than that *hich is i"!ose#+ acci#ental+ !articular+ changeable+ an# "ulti!le("isun#erstan#s+ an# conse uently conflates+ Nietzsches syste"atic se!aration of origin an# !ur!ose.,;3. It follo*s that he is unable to e1!lain ho* Nietzsche fin#s in the genealogical as!ect of "oral %alues a relati%ely gi%en+ essential+ uni%ersal+ in%ariant+ an# unitary #eter"inant of their %alue.,;9.

*This essay first appeared in )nternational Studies in +hilosophy and is reprinted with permission, $ull citation- +aul S, .oeb! /)s There a Genetic $allacy in "iet#sche0s Genealogy of (orals12 )nternational Studies in +hilosophy 34-5 67889:- 739;7<7,