It is an excellent thing when one can use the expressions "right" and "wrong" in a definite, narrow, and "bourgeois" sense, as for instance in the sentence: "Do right and fear no one";[4]--that is to say, to do one's duty, according to the rough scheme of life within the limit of which a community exists.--Let us not think meanly of what a few thousand years of morality have inculcated upon our minds. [Footnote 4: "Thue Recht und scheue Niemand."] 268. Two types of morality must not be confounded: the morality with which the instinct that has remained healthy defends itself from incipient decadence, and the other morality by means of which this decadence asserts itself, justifies itself, and leads downwards. The first-named is usually stoical, hard, tyrannical _(Stoicism_ itself was an example of the sort of "drag-chain" morality we speak of); the other is gushing, sentimental, full of secrets, it has the women and "beautiful feelings" on its side (Primitive Christianity was an example of this morality). 269. I shall try to regard all moralising, with one glance, as a phenomenon--also as a _riddle._ Moral phenomena have preoccupied me like riddles. To-day I should be able to give a reply to the question: why _should_ my neighbour's welfare be of greater value to me than my own? and why is it that my neighbour himself _should_ value his welfare differently from the way in which I value it--that is to say, why should precisely _my_ welfare be paramount in his mind? What is the meaning of this "Thou shalt," which is regarded as "given" even by philosophers themselves? The seemingly insane idea that a man should esteem the act he performs for a fellow-creature, higher than the one he performs for himself, and that the same fellow-creature should do so too (that only those acts should be held to be good which are performed with an eye to the neighbour and for his welfare) has its reasons--namely, as the result of the social instinct which rests upon the valuation, that single individuals are of little importance although collectively their importance is very great. This, of course, presupposes that they constitute a _community_ with one feeling and one conscience pervading the whole. It is therefore a sort of exercise for keeping one's eyes in a certain direction; it is the will to a kind of optics which renders a view of one's self impossible. My idea: goals are wanting, and _these must be individuals._ We see the general drift: every individual gets sacrificed and serves as a tool. Let any one keep his eyes open in the streets--is not every one he sees a slave? Whither? What is the purpose of it all? 270.