I think so yeah.
In the west you don't have to be born wealthy or powerful to attain wealth or power.
And in the west they tend to value upward mobility.
I suppose you could say this is something of a soft spot for the underdog.

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause." — Tertullian

I think that Tertullian perfectly captures Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment.

And I'd say Tertullian is not alone.

I don't think you're being specific enough. There are plenty of instances of resentment in "underdog morality," but it is also frequently an expression of justice. In some instances, it's both at the same time.

Resentment tends to manifest as hatred or cruelity towards a powerful group. The powerful "deserve it," whatever thatight be, for being dominant. It's not really a measure of whether someone is seeking a just outcome or defending an ethical concern. They are sort of two different axes which are defined independently.

There is a brand of morality that simply rejects anyone who has power. — Mongrel

That is true, there is such a brand, and it is indeed buried in resentment. However, quoting Jesus probably won't help a lot here. If Jesus came to overthrow the kingdoms and powers of earth, we have to interpret that as eschatology. In God's unfolding judgement, the first (powerful, rich) will be last and the last (the meek, the poor) will be first. The orders of status will be up-ended.

Take away the end of this world, the Kingdom of Heaven, the final judgement, and so on, and the preaching of Jesus loses it's fizz. If this is an unredeemed and irredeemable world, it makes no sense to celebrate meekness and poverty.

My guess is that resentment comes before the morality. "We are extremely dissatisfied with our wretched lot. "Some people are in the penthouse, eating foie gras pate; me and my wife are in the shithouse eating beans and hay..." "I hate those people; they don't deserve what they have got. I want more. I need more. I deserve more!" They hate the rich, especially if they are in close proximity.

A number of moralities come to mind. An anarchist might justify taking an elevator up to the penthouse and throwing a bomb into the middle of the rich folks' soirée, ridding the planet of the lot of them. The communist might take them all down on the elevator and line them up against a wall and shoot them. Some will denounce them for being privileged, for having power, and send them to North Dakota to work on the fracking rigs. They won't grieve when the rich folks go bankrupt.

I would not say it is the liberal view to "revile anyone who has self-love and to teach that the proper mode is to be poor, helpless, and full of self-loathing." — m-theory

I agree. This sort of morality has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It's the psychology of twisted people, whatever their political views.

ruthless, greedy — Agustino

It isn't the climb to the top that gives people ruthless, greedy, ambition. It's ruthless, greedy, ambition that drives them up and on -- despite whatever adverse headwinds, insults, and so forth they endure on their way to the top.

Well it's not just ruthlessness, greed, and ambition.
There are plenty with these traits that don't make it to the top.

So I think there has to be something more to it than just these things.

It's been awhile since I have read the Genealogy of Morals, but I recall that Nietzsche used a technical term "ressentment" a form of resentment. Wikipedia has pretty good discussion about it

Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. This value system is then used as a means of justifying one's own weaknesses by identifying the source of envy as objectively inferior, serving as a defense mechanism that prevents the resentful individual from addressing and overcoming their insecurities and flaws. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

I think we see this type of ressetiment occurring around the world today.

off topic but
what is your avatar pic of?

However, even if he had little power, he would be willing to do a lot of evil things, only that he wouldn't have the means to do them. — Agustino

This is too simplistic, and ignores the fact that power corrupts.

My guess is that resentment comes before the morality. "We are extremely dissatisfied with our wretched lot. "Some people are in the penthouse, eating foie gras pate; me and my wife are in the shithouse eating beans and hay..." "I hate those people; they don't deserve what they have got. I want more. I need more. I deserve more!" They hate the rich, especially if they are in close proximity. — Bitter Crank

I would say the sense of unfairness comes before the resentment. Do you think it is right that the rich be allowed to accumulate as much as they are able at the expense of others, and only be compelled to give back a minimum, just as much as will be barely tolerable to those who are disadvantaged by their hoarding of resources?

I'm a marxist. I'm quite prepared to take most of what the rich have got.

Good on you. Me too...fuck the greedy bastards..

ruthlessness, greed, and ambition — m-theory

Absolutely these are not sufficient to get one to the top of the wealth pile. Quite right, lots of people who barely make it up the first few steps out of the basement are also ruthless, greedy, and ambitious.

But... Given talent, given favorable conditions (like a head start), given generous bankers willing to lend the money, given high unemployment to keep wages down, given strong demand for minerals which you happen to own, or smelting equipment that is ready to go, AND ruthless ambitious greed, one will get to the top.

Bill Gates had help getting to being a multi-billionaire a couple times over. It takes the help of investment bankers, for instance, to get small businesses rolling. It does take talent. It takes luck: Bill couldn't have know exactly how his little DOS program designed for the measly IBM personal computer toy would work out; IBM couldn't either. But... it worked out well. Many, many copies of DOS sold. Then Windows. Then Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and all that; Access; huge labor forces scribbling code. Sweetheart deals nailing Microsoft software into every PC.

what is your avatar pic of? — m-theory

It's just photoshop art that I did a long time ago.

but it is also frequently an expression of justice. — TheWillowOfDarkness

N drops the scenario straight onto the Jews. There's no doubt that the Jews had a unique problem with the concept of justice because their religion teaches that they have a special relationship with God. They have a deal or covenant in which God protects them if they meet his requirements as laid out in the Mosaic law. Anytime bad things happened, the Jews would try to work out how they had failed God so they could get it right. Eventually that technique was strained to the point of absurdity.

Christian apocalypticism actually starts about 200 years before Jesus was born. A statue of Zeus was installed in the Holy of Holies in the temple in an attempt to Hellenize the Jews. Scholars say that it was around this time that the book of Daniel was written and circulated. The concept of the World to Come is taking shape as an answer to the problem of God's justice. They probably weren't even aware that they were modifying an element of the Zoroastrian religion.

The World to Come is a time when the Gentiles are supposed to finally get what's coming to them. The Jews will be raised up to their proper place at the right hand of God. By putting resolution of injustice somewhere off in the future, Good becomes other worldly. This world of wounded flesh is all bad and just a passing shadow pending the arrival of the Messiah.

Christians say the Messiah did come, but obviously nothing significant changed. What a drag. Maybe he'll come again... yea, that's it.

Ressentiment. My translation doesn't use that word, but I can see how getting a little jargonny about it is a good idea.

Take away the end of this world, the Kingdom of Heaven, the final judgement, and so on, and the preaching of Jesus loses it's fizz. If this is an unredeemed and irredeemable world, it makes no sense to celebrate meekness and poverty. — Bitter Crank

Exactly.

N drops the scenario straight onto the Jews. There's no doubt that the Jews had a unique problem with the concept of justice because their religion teaches that they have a special relationship with God. They have a deal or covenant in which God protects them if they meet his requirements as laid out in the Mosaic law. Anytime bad things happened, the Jews would try to work out how they had failed God so they could get it right. Eventually that technique was strained to the point of absurdity. — Mongrel

I think that quite possibly it's not the Jews that express ressentiment in their morality, but, as this video illustrates, many of the other peoples have hated and some still continue to hate the Jews. This is quite unfortunate in my opinion, and it is exactly why the Western world must help protect Israel.

What would you call that.. anti-Jewish sentiment? I guess you could call it anti-Semitic, but that would include hatred of the Phoenicians.

What would you call that.. anti-Jewish sentiment? I guess you could call it anti-Semitic, but that would include hatred of the Phoenicians. — Mongrel

It's less important what you call it. The point of the Borat movie is that the supposedly "civilised" Americans are more often more racist, more bigoted, and more sexually deviant than even he himself, the savage, is - as illustrated by the American's reaction vis-a-vis Jews in this scene. That's what makes the movie genius.

Re the initial post in the thread, I also don't see where you're getting the materialistic/non-materialistic idea from re Nietzsche's noble/slave morality dichotomy. (Maybe he does say something about this, though, that I just don't recall.)

In any event, I think the dichotomy is a false one. And I don't buy the idea of there being conflicting "packages" of morality that different socio-economic categories of people accept.

Re the initial post in the thread, I also don't see where you're getting the materialistic/non-materialistic idea from re Nietzsche's Noble/Slave morality dichotomy. (Maybe he does say something about this, though, that I just don't recall.)

In any event, I think the dichotomy is a false one. And I don't buy the idea of their being conflicting "packages" of morality that different socio-economic categories of people accept. — Terrapin Station

Yes I made the same point in my reply but it was never addressed here:
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/47611#Post_47611

OK.

It's less important what you call it. The point of the Borat movie is that the supposedly "civilised" Americans are more often more racist, more bigoted, and more sexually deviant than even he himself, the savage, — Agustino

That's correct. Plus we have a ginormous nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver warheads anywhere anytime with ICBMs, medium range missiles, bombers, and submarines. Think about it.

Plus we have a ginormous nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver warheads anywhere anytime with ICBMs, medium range missiles, bombers, and submarines. Think about it. — Mongrel

What's that got to do with anything though?

It's all about sexual deviancy, dude.

It's all about sexual deviancy, dude. — Mongrel

:s