It was kind of a joke, because it’s pretty complicated, but I was also kind of asking for it, so here goes. (The question was about a parenthetical remark in my last addition to this post.)

In Beyond Good and Evil (henceforth BGE) and On the Genealogy of Morality (GM), Nietzsche draws a distinction between noble values and slave morality. (In BGE he called them “master and slave morality,” but by GM he was using the word “morality” to refer only to the slave type.) They differ both in structure and in typical content, but the structural differences are most important. Here are the typical features of each, structure first, content generalizations last:

Noble values

1. Set up a hierarchical society divided into at least two castes, some of which are considered better than others, with the higher one(s) always being considerably smaller than the lower (a pyramid structure). Members of different castes have both different rights and different duties: different behavior is expected both toward and from members of different castes.

2. The major value axis is good vs. bad (rather than good vs. evil), where good = noble, i.e. characteristic of the high caste(s), and bad = contemptible, common, characteristic of the low caste(s).
3. Not everyone is supposed to be “good”; it is not expected or desired of commoners that they act like nobles.
4. There is a strict honor-based code of discipline and mutual respect among members of the noble caste; commoners must show deference and obedience to nobles; nobles may not precisely have duties to commoners, but are expected to protect them and show generosity (noblesse oblige); nobles don’t really care how commoners treat each other as long as they don’t cause disorder.
5. The values are usually (but not always) war-like: the noble caste is the warrior caste; their honor depends on their skill in fighting (according to a specific set of rules); the lower class is considered to be weak and cowardly, and may not even be permitted to carry weapons except upon the express command of the nobles.

Slave morality

1. Prescribes a universal code of conduct to everyone; everyone has the same rights and duties. (The universality feature is why Nietzsche stops calling noble values a “morality.”)
2. The major value axis is good vs. evil, where generally good = helpful, selfless, harmless and evil = violent, selfish, domineering. In other words, Nietzsche argues in GM, “good” describes the characteristic behavior of the slave caste in a noble value system, and “evil” describes the characteristic behavior of the noble caste.
3. Ideally, everyone will become “good.” Whereas the “good” of the good/bad noble system requires the wider prevalence of the “bad” in order to maintain its prestige, the (theoretical) goal of good/evil slave morality is to eliminate evil.
4. Typically the values are altruistic, peaceable, and egalitarian, though structurally speaking you can also have a “morality” of hedonism and selfishness.

As you probably will have figured out, Christian morality is the prototypical slave morality. Meanwhile, the societies of ancient Greece and Rome were governed by noble values, and despite the official adoption of Christianity, a basically noble value system persisted into feudal Europe. For the most part, Christianity prescribed the code of conduct for the lower classes (humility, forbearance) while the nobles maintained their own warlike codes of honor. The advent of democratic ideals, even as they seemed to come with secularization, actually represents the consistent society-wide implementation of Christian morality. Modern Leftists/progressives are now the standard-bearers for this secularized Christian morality of compassion (and I do include myself here!). Meanwhile, the people who call themselves “conservatives,” at least in the U.S., are not representatives of a noble value system so much as of the slave “morality” of selfishness I alluded to in the last point, which is basically the underpinning of capitalist society.

There are very few bastions of noble values left in contemporary society. The military is one. Criminal organizations, at least as depicted in media, are another. And that’s the entire reason why I wrote this post. Contemporary Western culture is a product of both the noble values of pre-modern Europe – both pre-Christian pagan Europe and feudal medieval Europe – and the slave moralities of Christianity and liberal democracy (now divided into the altruistic, egalitarian morality of the Left and the selfish, greed-driven morality of the Right). Some of the basic values of the noble system are still baked into our culture; we do have concern for honor and reputation, we respect people who can discipline themselves to accomplish difficult feats (whether or not those feats involve helping others, which is the whole point of altruistic morality). There’s still something appealing about a system in which an elite privileged few follow a demanding code of conduct and demonstrate mutual respect even when they’re on opposite sides of a battlefield, while to anyone else, showing consideration is a boon of mercy rather than a requirement of justice. Of course we don’t really want our whole society to look like that; we no longer believe in the rights of nobility; we don’t condone needless violence. But every once in a while we like to become imaginative tourists in that kind of value system, which is why people like to watch movies/TV shows about gangs and other warlike honor cultures.