Thus in the _history of morality_ a _will to power_ finds expression, by means of which, either the slaves, the oppressed, the bungled and the botched, those that suffer from themselves, or the mediocre, attempt to make those valuations prevail which favour _their_ existence. From a biological standpoint, therefore, the phenomenon Morality is of a highly suspicious nature. Up to the present, morality has developed at the _cost_ of: the ruling classes and their specific instincts, the well-constituted and _beautiful_ natures, the independent and privileged classes in all respects. Morality, then, is a sort of counter-movement opposing Nature's endeavours to arrive at a _higher type._ Its effects are: mistrust of life in general (in so far as its tendencies are felt to be immoral), --hostility towards the senses (inasmuch as the highest values are felt to be opposed to the higher instincts),--Degeneration and self-destruction of "higher natures," because it is precisely in them that the conflict becomes _conscious._ 401. _Which values have been paramount hitherto?_ Morality as the leading value in all phases of philosophy (even with the Sceptics). Result: this world is no good, a "true world" must exist somewhere. What is it that here determines the highest value? What, in sooth, is morality? The instinct of decadence; it is the exhausted and the disinherited who _take their revenge_ in this way and play the _masters_.... Historical proof: philosophers have always been decadents and always in the pay of Nihilistic religions. The instinct of decadence appears as the will to power. The introduction of its system of means: its means are absolutely immoral. General aspect: the values that have been highest hitherto have been a special instance of the will to power; morality itself is a particular instance of _immorality._ *** Why the Antagonistic Values always succumbed. 1. How was this actually _possible!_ Question: why did life and physiological well-constitutedness succumb everywhere? Why was there no affirmative philosophy, no affirmative religion? The historical signs of such movements: the pagan religion. Dionysos _versus_ the Christ. The Renaissance. Art. 2. The strong and the weak: the healthy and the sick; the exception and the rule. There is no doubt as to who is the stronger.... _General view of history_; Is man an _exception_ in the history of life on this account?--An objection to _Darwinism._ The means wherewith the weak succeed in ruling have become: instincts, "humanity," "institutions." ... 3. The proof of this rule on the part of the weak is to be found in our political instincts, in our social values, in our arts, and in our _science._ *** The _instincts of decadence_ have become master of the _instincts of ascending_ life.... The _will to nonentity_ has prevailed over the _will to life_!