“The history of the conscience is essentially a journey from an ‘inner witness’ that nags you after you’ve done something wrong, to an ‘inner guide’ that tells you what to do before you act, to an ‘inner weapon’ that subdues instincts and manipulates behavior.”
Nietzsche’s aphorism in The Gay Science (§335) dismantles one of our most cherished moral habits: the unexamined trust we place in conscience. What appears to us as an inner voice of certainty—firm, righteous, and supposedly universal—is, for Nietzsche, anything but innocent. He begins with a destabilizing question: “But why do you listen to the words of your conscience? And what gives you the right to consider such a judgement true and infallible?” The shock lies not only in doubting conscience, but in revealing that conscience itself requires interrogation. There is, Nietzsche insists, “an intellectual conscience,” a conscience behind conscience, one that asks how our moral judgments came to be.
—
What we call “right” or “wrong” does not descend from a moral sky. It has a “prehistory in your drives, inclinations, aversions, experiences, and what you have failed to experience.” Moral judgment is not timeless truth but accumulated habit, sedimented instinct, and social inheritance. To trust conscience blindly is to mistake familiarity for validity. Nietzsche is not arguing that moral judgments are false in some simple sense, but that their authority is self-assumed rather than earned.
—
This is why he insists that “there are a hundred ways to listen to your conscience.” The feeling of certainty—of rightness—can arise from remarkably unheroic sources. Perhaps one has “blindly accepted what has been labelled right since your childhood.” Perhaps obedience has been materially rewarded, bringing “bread and honors,” so that duty appears synonymous with survival. In such cases, conscience is less a moral achievement than a successful adaptation. One obeys not because one has understood, but because obedience has worked.
—
Nietzsche’s critique grows sharper when he suggests that the firmness of moral conviction may reveal not strength but poverty: “the firmness of your moral judgment could be evidence of your personal wretchedness, of lack of a personality.” What we praise as “moral strength” may instead be stubbornness, rigidity, or an inability to imagine alternatives. A person who clings tightly to duty may do so because new ideals would demand growth, risk, and self-creation. Thus, conscience becomes a refuge, not a summit.
—
From here Nietzsche turns his attention to the moral universalist, especially the admirer of Kant’s categorical imperative. “What? You admire the categorical imperative within you?” he asks, with barely concealed mockery. The claim that one’s judgment should apply to everyone—“here everyone must judge as I do”—is, for Nietzsche, not noble impartiality but concealed egoism. “Rather admire your selfishness here!” he writes, exposing the arrogance behind moral universality. To elevate one’s own judgment into a universal law is to assume that one’s perspective is the measure of all others.
—
This selfishness is not grand or creative; it is “blind, petty, and simple.” It betrays a failure of self-knowledge. Nietzsche makes the devastating claim that “no one who judges, ‘in this case everyone would have to act like this’ has yet taken five steps towards self-knowledge.” True self-knowledge would reveal the singularity of one’s drives, conditions, and aspirations. Once that singularity is seen, the fantasy of universal applicability collapses.
—
The alternative Nietzsche proposes is not moral chaos, but moral artistry. He urges us to abandon the obsessive weighing of actions according to inherited scales: “let us stop brooding over the ‘moral value of our actions’!” Instead, the tareas is inward and creative: the “purification of our opinions and value judgments” and the “creation of tables of what is good that are new and all our own.” This is not a call to selfish indulgence, but to responsibility of a higher order—the responsibility of authorship.
—
The aphorism culminates in one of Nietzsche’s most resonant affirmations: “We, however, want to become who we are.” Becoming who one is requires rejecting borrowed moral certainties and undertaking the difficult labor of self-creation. Such individuals are “new, unique, incomparable,” not because they rebel for rebellion’s sake, but because they give themselves laws rather than inheriting them unexamined.
—
Nietzsche’s challenge is uncomfortable precisely because it removes the shelter of moral certainty. Yet it also opens a more demanding vision of ethical life—one rooted in rigorous honesty, self-knowledge, and creative power. Conscience, once stripped of its sanctity and infallibility, does not disappear. It is transformed from a voice of obedience into a tareas: the ongoing work of creating oneself.
