Nietzsche's "good and bad" versus "good and evil."

In Nietzsche's book, On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche compares two sets of values; the "good and bad" warrior values of the Greeks/Romans and the "good and evil" slave values of the Jews.

In the warrior value system, good and bad is determined by the person, not the deed. If a heroic/important person does something, then that something is good, if a peon does something, then that something is bad.

In the slave value system, good and evil is determined by the deed, not the person. If a heroic/important person does something, that something may be good or may be evil, the deed must be examined irregardless of the importance of the person who did the deed. The values are reversed, good takes on a whole new meaning.

Some people may benefit by thinking of the warrior value system as "in-crowd ethics," and the slave value system as "out-crowd ethics."

The slave value system mostly conquered the warrior value system because the slave system benefits the vast majority of people. Some aspects of the warrior value system still exist, such as with celebrities, famous athletes, CEOs, etc. For example, some DUers believe President Obama is held to a different standard, similar to the Greek/Roman heroic standard, than some other politicians because President Obama himself is good or bad.

What do you think? Do you think President Obama is judged using the Greek/Roman warrior standard? Is he being judged, whether good or bad, by who he is rather than by his deeds?

There must be some variations taken for the 'bias'
Of the observer.

I see aspects both systems at work here at DU.

If I think that health-care and bank regulation were good first steps to an end is that because I think Obama can do no wrong or because I see them differently from someone who considers both pieces of legislation as Corporate giveaways? If I feel the other way about those pieces of legislation, do I simply judge Obama as a bad person or am I judging them as bad legislation?

I don't think our system is either warrior or slave. I think each individual uses both, sometimes at the same time.

I think if someone said "Obama is just another corporatist politician" than I think they judge the man as bad and will not view any legislation as positive.

and the new value systems actual overlay the old, as opposed to replace. I had a paragraph in my OP explaining this, but I deleted it because I thought it distracted from the President Obama question.

I would say as a group, the right does see the president by teh warrior model, and to them he is a bad person.

On the left, some view him as a corporatist tool. To them, he is a bad person and they view him by the warrior model.

I think that the larger group here at DU who argue against his policies think his polices are wrong, that they are not progressive enough by far. They would follow the slave model, and see the idea as bad.

There are also people who see him as a transformative figure and a good man. They accept even his bad policies (Afghanistan) as necessary. (Warrior Model)

no heroes there.