view, Nietzsche once speaks of evil as an atavism of a former good; acts, once done innocently, become evil, crimes, to the conscience of a later time.[1] j Moreover, what is good for one individual is evil for another. Steady industry is not good for the perfect artist, habits of obedience are out of place in one who commands, resignation does not befit one with a great aim, though such things are all desirable for men in general. Even for the same individual, good and evil may change at different epochs of his life—the magnanimous feelings shared by Napoleon in his youth with his time became seductions and temptations later on, since they weakened the exclusive application of his force in one direction which then was necessary.[2] Nietzsche himself wished to turn some things now commonly counted good into evil.[3] He even speaks once or twice, though rather obscurely, of what is useful in one direction being necessarily evil in others, so that a thing may be good and evil at the same time, depending on the standpoint from which it is regarded."[4] However this may be, good and evil are to his mind relative judgments only—evil does not inhere in things themselves or in men themselves. With a certain humanity Zarathustra turns on judges who pass sentence on the "pale criminal," charging them, "Enemy" shall ye say, but not "villain," "sick man" shall ye say, but not "wretch" (Schuft), "fool" shall ye say, but not "sinner."[5]
