Man, incarcerated in an iron cage of errors, has become a caricature of man; he is sick, emaciated, ill-disposed towards himself, filled with a loathing of the impulses of life, filled with a mistrust of all that is beautiful and happy in life--in fact, he is a wandering monument of misery. How shall we ever succeed in vindicating this phenomenon--this artificial, arbitrary, and _recent_ miscarriage--the sinner--which the priests have bred on their territory? *** In order to think fairly of morality, we must put two _biological_ notions in its place: the _taming_ of the wild beasts, and the _rearing of a particular species._ The priests of all ages have always pretended that they wished to "_improve_" ... But we, of another persuasion, would laugh if a lion-tamer ever wished to speak to us of his "improved" animals. As a rule, the taming of a beast is only achieved by deteriorating it: even the moral man is not a better man; he is rather a weaker member of his species. But he is less harmful.... 398. What I want to make clear, with all the means in my power, is:-- _(a)_ That there is no worse confusion than that which confounds _rearing_ and _taming_: and these two things have always been confused.... Rearing, as I understand it, is a means of husbanding the enormous powers of humanity in such a way that whole generations may build upon the foundations laid by their progenitors--not only outwardly, but inwardly, organically, developing from the already existing stem and growing _stronger_.... _(b)_ That there is an exceptional danger in believing that mankind as a whole is developing and growing stronger, if individuals are seen to grow more feeble and more equally mediocre. Humanity--mankind--is an abstract thing: the object of _rearing,_ even in regard to the most individual cases, can only be the _strong_ man (the man who has no breeding is weak, dissipated, and unstable). 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS CONCERNING THE CRITICISM OF MORALITY. 399. These are the things I demand of you--however badly they may sound in your ears: that you subject moral valuations themselves to criticism. That you should put a stop to your instinctive moral impulse--which in this case demands submission and not criticism--with the question: "why precisely submission?" That this yearning for a "why?"--for a criticism of morality should not only be your present form of morality, but the sublimest of all moralities, and an honour to the age you live in. That your honesty, your will, may give an account of itself, and not deceive you: "why not?"--Before what tribunal? 400. The three _postulates_:-- All that is ignoble is high (the protest of the "vulgar man"). All that is contrary to Nature is high (the protest of the physiologically botched). All that is of average worth is high (the protest of the herd, of the "mediocre").