The _law,_ which is the fundamentally realistic formula of certain self-preservative measures of a community, forbids certain actions that have a definite tendency to jeopardise the welfare of that community: it does _not_ forbid the attitude of mind which gives rise to these actions--for in the pursuit of other ends the community requires these forbidden actions, namely, when it is a matter of opposing its _enemies._ The moral idealist now steps forward and says: "God sees into men's hearts: the action itself counts for nothing; the reprehensible attitude of mind from which it proceeds must be extirpated ..." In normal conditions men laugh at such things; it is only in exceptional cases, when a community lives _quite_ beyond the need of waging war in order to maintain itself, that an ear is lent to such things. Any attitude of mind is abandoned, the utility of which cannot be conceived. This was the case, for example, when Buddha appeared among a people that was both peaceable and afflicted with great intellectual weariness. This was also the case in regard to the first Christian community (as also the Jewish), the primary condition of which was the absolutely _unpolitical_ Jewish society. Christianity could grow only upon the soil of Judaism--that is to say, among a people that had already renounced the political life, and which led a sort of parasitic existence within the Roman sphere of government, Christianity goes a step _farther_: it allows men to "emasculate" themselves even more; the circumstances actually favour their doing so.--_Nature_ is _expelled_ from morality when it is said, "Love ye your enemies": for _Nature's_ injunction, "Ye shall _love_ your neighbour and _hate_ your enemy," has now become senseless in the law (in instinct); now, even _the love a man feels for his neighbour_ must first be based upon something (_a sort of love of God_). _God_ is introduced everywhere, and _utility_ is withdrawn; the natural _origin_ of morality is denied everywhere: the _veneration of Nature,_ which lies in _acknowledging a natural morality,_ is _destroyed_ to the roots.... Whence comes the _seductive charm_ of this emasculate ideal of man? Why are we not _disgusted_ by it, just as we are disgusted at the thought of a eunuch?... The answer is obvious: it is not the voice of the eunuch that revolts us, despite the cruel mutilation of which it is the result; for, as a matter of fact, it has grown sweeter.... And owing to the very fact that the "male organ" has been amputated from virtue, its voice now has a feminine ring, which, formerly, was not to be discerned.