Language is failing us, leading to concept creep and an inability to access reality.

How did the word “good” change from a symbol of nobility and strength to a function of utility and compliance? In this episode, Ryder Richards explores the historical and philosophical shifts behind moral language, diving into:

• Friedrich Nietzsche – How “good” originally meant noble and powerful, but was inverted by the weak into meekness and obedience (slave morality).
• Max Scheler – The transformation of morality from greatness to usefulness, aligning with capitalism and utilitarianism.
• Alasdair MacIntyre – The loss of a shared moral language, leading to fragmented ethical debates.
• Orwell’s 1984 – How modern politics manipulates language, emptying moral terms of meaning through cultural warfare.

Key Takeaway: Are we still capable of discussing morality in a meaningful way? Or are we just clinging to words without realizing their meanings have changed?

Step 85: The Semantic Drift of “Good”

Nietzsche: The Genealogy of Morality

Nietzsche was a master of tracing ideas back to their historical origins, and in On the Genealogy of Morality, he makes a radical claim: the word good originally meant noble—not moral.

“Good” was once a term of self-affirmation for the strong, the powerful, the aristocratic. It meant strength, health, and beauty. But over time, the lower classes, particularly religious figures, inverted its meaning. Weakness became virtue. Humility became noble. And thus, “slave morality” was born.

Nietzsche describes this as a psychological reversal—a rebranding of moral values by the powerless, who resented the powerful. The noble aristocrats once declared, “We are good because we are strong,” but over time, the oppressed redefined good to mean meekness, obedience, and suffering.

And this shift wasn’t just linguistic—it was moral warfare. Nietzsche saw Christianity as a key player in this inversion, turning the powerful into villains and the weak into saints. He saw this as an act of ressentiment—a term that brings us to Max Scheler.

Step 85: The Semantic Drift of “Good”

Scheler: Ressentiment and Value Shifts

Max Scheler picks up where Nietzsche left off. In his work Ressentiment, he deepens the analysis by looking at modern morality.

Scheler argues that the problem is no longer just about power struggles between nobles and the oppressed. It’s that morality itself has been corrupted by utility. Modern morality is no longer about greatness—it’s about usefulness.

Good is no longer a noble quality—it has become a function. Instead of asking “who is great?” modern ethics asks, “what is useful?”

This shift aligns with capitalism, democracy, and utilitarianism, all of which reinforce the idea that morality serves a purpose rather than existing as an inherent aristocratic quality. In this world, mediocrity is rewarded, and nobility is eroded.

Nietzsche saw morality as a battlefield. Scheler saw it as a slow decay into utility.

But MacIntyre takes an even more drastic position: we’ve lost the ability to talk coherently about morality.

Step 85: The Semantic Drift of “Good”

MacIntyre: The Loss of Meaning in Moral Language

Alasdair MacIntyre, in his book After Virtue, around 1980, makes a troubling claim:

“We still use words like ‘good’ and ‘virtue,’ but they have been stripped of their historical meanings.”

He argues that modern society suffers from moral fragmentation. Unlike Nietzsche, who blamed power struggles, or Scheler, who blamed utility, MacIntyre blames cultural collapse.

We no longer share a common moral foundation. Instead, we are left with a collection of moral terms that no longer mean what they once did. People argue about ethics, but their arguments rest on different historical foundations—without realizing it.

For MacIntyre, the problem isn’t just that morality has changed—it’s that it has become incoherent. Our ethical discussions are like playing chess with pieces from Monopoly and rules from poker—nothing fits together.

And this brings us to a modern parallel—Orwell and the culture wars.

Step 85: The Semantic Drift of “Good”

Cuenco on Orwell’s 1984 and the Structural Collapse of Language

Michael Cuenco, in his essay Victory Is Not Possible, ties this moral fragmentation to Orwell’s 1984.

In Orwell’s world, language is controlled, twisted, and emptied of meaning. “War is Peace.” “Freedom is Slavery.” “Ignorance is Strength.”

Cuenco argues that modern politics functions the same way—the constant war over identity, culture, and meaning prevents any real moral progress.

He points to Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate as an example:

People are whipped into a frenzy—not over reasoned debate, but over emotional allegiance to their tribe. This isn’t about moral progress; it’s about keeping the system intact.

And that’s where we are today: a world where moral language no longer has a shared meaning, where concept creep has blurred the boundaries, and where semantic drift has rendered ethical discussions fruitless.

Step 85: The Semantic Drift of “Good”

Conclusion: Where Do We Go From Here?

So, what can we take from this?

1. Nietzsche showed us that good was originally about power and nobility, but it was inverted by the weak.
2. Scheler warned that good had further decayed into mere usefulness (utility/function), stripping it of nobility.
3. MacIntyre showed that we’ve lost the ability to even define good because modern moral language is broken.
4. Orwell (via Cuenco) remind us that this isn’t an accident—it’s a structural collapse of meaning, reinforced by the culture war.

What I want us to take from this is that “good” has inverted: the nobility or aristocrats are now stereotypically seen as “evil,” while many who rant and scream -threatening and performing violence- announce a claim to “good.” This power inversion mirrors semantic inversion: what you value may not be what you value; you might just be hanging onto a word, which now means its opposite.

As my therapist has told me, you need to stop wanting to be a good person—who even knows what that means?—and just work on being a whole person.

But she had to provide me with a new word… a new definition… that would free me from my alignment fixation.