Nietzsche Yes, Nietzsche committed a

Nietzsche Yes, Nietzsche committed a genetic fallacy by tracing the origin of goodness entirely and intrinsically from the claim and invention of nobles, the situation of slaves and historical events that pitted them together and ruled out universal empirical and categorical imperatives on what is true and good, all the while grounding his anti-Semitic bias on the misdeeds of both nobles and slaves.

Nietzsche argued that goodness was merely a fabrication made by nobles who ascribed all physical, social, intellectual and moral qualities to themselves exclusively and distinctively from those whom they considered inferior, such as common people and slaves. He thought that virtue or goodness was performed only for some useful or utilitarian purpose and that it could not and did not exist for itself. He began his argument without the slightest consideration for universal laws that can be demonstrated and tested independently of human opinion and influence.

He was suspicious about warriors who were admired like gods, such as the Goths and people who mistakenly identified and still identify political superiority with "superiority of soul." He was most virulent at erring priests who, according to him, resorted to outward observances of fasting, continence, devotional acts and morbidities in lieu of the more active atmosphere engaged in by warriors and nobles.

He was specifically antagonistic about the offer of salvation by a Crucified Savior and refused to acquiesce to the ex-deal for eternal life in lieu of a temporal life of selfishness. He claimed that the Jews viciously inverted the nobles' invented moral values that made unhappiness, servility, wretchedness, worthlessness, oppression and the like the way to perfect happiness.

He traced that argument from start to finish as a mere human concept of one's perfection in pursuit of external approval, leaving out anything universal and using historical events of abuses by those he frowned upon as evidence of their evil and the non-existence of any pure goodness or truth beyond their inventiveness and creativity. Nietzsche held that the nobles first arrogated upon themselves the highest and best qualities and coined them.

He assumed that these nobles considered and called themselves "powerful" and "good" and the common and lowly "weak" and "bad." He believed in historical records on the ill doings of both classes and did not doubt the veracity of historical recording.

He faithfully followed the evolution of words and how certain words got the same, different or opposite meanings, such as "bad," "simple," "practical," and "harmful." In time, those who wrote those records or had access to them put in their bigotries: the bad were ugly, cowardly, wretched, poor and Black, while the good, well-born, gentle, victorious and achieving were white-skinned and blonde.

He pointed to deity as having its beginnings in idolatry for warriors and that ancient people were always assumed to be wild, uncouth and of small skull. Most of all, he was enraged at the Jews, especially Jewish priests, the ascetics whom he accused of harboring only the vilest form of revenge in their consciousness by not responding with an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.

He also accused these priests who awaited their Messiah of the supreme form of arrogance, acute vindictiveness, profligacy, and various lusts. He was particularly unsettled with the perception that the Jews viciously revaluated and condemned ancient nobles' indulgence in their conceits, physical pleasures and external goods. He saw the Jews as the force behind the tremendous triumph of theism of the slaves and as possessing only the deepest, most dangerous sort of hatred for humanity rather than love for it.

Without any universal laws or theories as guide in surfing through history, he took each incident on its own merits, based only by a critical watchfulness for human mistakes. He was completely uncomfortable with the idea of the pitiable, miserable, base, good-for-nothing and, perhaps, mere contemplatives, being closer to an Omnipotent Cause or to the fulfillment of human destiny. Whatever religion one has or does not have, there are universal or scientific facts that stand and can be ascertained.

Human beings err and many err miserably and Nietzsche cannot fault an entire race or period for the misdeeds of even many. 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 in his criticism of the concept of goodness, he could visualize it only in relation to human flaws and he certainly found a lot of them and used them as effective basis for his condemnation.

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.