He also did not consider that the attribution of goodness or perfection was not exclusive to early nobles, the Roman warrior, the Greek artist or the Jewish priest who trusted in a Messiah. Common people and slaves always held their own beliefs in what is true and good and by their own ethical codes, believed that observing them would justify their actions and choices. What went into historical records were the experiences and opinions of the nobles, scholars and others with the skills or access to those records. The lowly and incapable did not have that access to records, which could have taken note of their beliefs and experiences too.Nietzsche could have grounded his argument that goodness evolved almost entirely or consistently from nobles, warriors and, lately, from inventiveness but abusive Jewish priests, according to commonly accepted and extant historical records. He should have allowed some opening for insufficiency of recorded events and the existence of independent universal and scientific laws that prove what stimuli produce suitable responses. He could have also argued that, based on what is made available by existing historical records, which erring and prejudiced human writers themselves contributed and formed, goodness appeared to have been invented by ancient nobles, victorious warriors and vengeful, shameless and ungodly Jewish priests and people. He could also name some genuine ascetics whose lives exhibited true goodness (that did not offend Nietzsche) and must have been honest enough to admit that he was not privy to authentic human motivation but could only subjectively interpret it from his tinted angle and biases.

Nietzsche strongly proposed and maintained that goodness was a mere invention of early nobles as a means to gaining approval or setting themselves out from the lowly, common people and slaves whom they ruled. In time, the word or concept of goodness got entangled with other prejudices, such as race. He noted that races and events soon muddled the connotation of the opposite of goodness from the social perception of "bad" to the more concrete "evil." Without accepting or considering any universal laws or theories...

But if he did not universalize, and instead used history as the only basis of judging the past, he could have plowed on more convincingly. If he alluded certain facts or truths to science, he could have proceeded better in his attack against the abuses and hypocrisies in history more credibly.
Nietzsche used historical data on these abuses to back up his steaming hatred for God, goodness and everyone and everything that required a human being to relinquish selfishness and the preference for the pleasure of the moment. He was already armed with this unbelief when he looked back at ancient nobles and slaves who rebelled against these nobles and the Roman rulers in obedience to some inherent moral code in their lives. Everyone must believe in something and that something guides him in what he does and in how he lives. Nietzsche completely blots this universal truth and viewed people as only existing for ego fulfillment or the approval of others. While he has grounds to resent abuses committed by nobles, slaves, Roman rulers, Jewish teachers and Christians in the past and in the present, he cannot universalize their "evil genius" as behind the victory of a movement that aspires to blot out selfishness as the root of all unhappiness. Nietzsche would be a sheer exception in the universal desire for happiness, as his arguments are all anti-happiness and anti-life, being a nihilist. Not advocating an official creed, this argument considers the incompleteness and unreliability of historical records, the proofs of a Supreme Deity Who is perfectly good and that philosophers like Nietzsche would have an agenda to pursue, rather than keep an open mind to the truth they encountered in the process.

Bibliography

Nietzsche, Friedrich…