In the genealogy of morality, I find Nietzsche’s account of the development of guilt an attempt to overthrow the moral norms that govern society. In describing the origin of guilt, Nietzsche claims that responsibility is not achieved through individual volition, but by punitive punishments, coercion, and conditioning by laws. He refers to the debtor-creditor relationship in particular, where the former is left at the mercy of the latter. Nietzsche errs gravely in saying that the sovereign individual, by being independent of social norms, is held accountable by the authority of his promise, reason why the debtor should over his body to be tortured by his creditor. This is a horrendous claim that insults man’s humane nature, which is not governed by the dictates of the conscience and promises alone, but by his inherent human quality to differentiate right from wrong. He erroneously claims that the individual is an independent sovereign, the master of free will and therefore not subject to societal demands. But the outrageousness of his moral excursion is in his emphasis that by themselves, (without coercion instruments) human beings could not develop a sense of responsibility in society. Similarly, his changing historical perspective of man’s conception of morality (transition from promise to conscience, to punishment and civil laws) suggests that our understanding of individual responsibilities to society is not fixed and will keep on changing. This claim implies that righteousness or evil is arbitrary, since man has held different notions of the same over time. Nietzsche’s first assault on morality as a social norm is rather indirect, for he glorifies the supreme being with the autonomy to decide on his own the standards he will uphold, and he promises he will keep. Accordingly, guilt is not suffered in the event that either by omission or commission justice is compromised, since the person did not make any promise to act in any respect. Nietzsche argues that a person is only responsible for what he promises to uphold. At this point in his genealogy of responsibility, he implies that individuals were held responsible if they promised to act in a certain way or committed themselves to a given course, and then failed or reneged on their promises. Consequently, one becomes guilty of theft if that person steals after promising that he/she will never steal. But now that he is independent, master of free will and has the right to recognize his own standards, he can decide that a little thieving and pinching of public coffers is right. Before he withdraws this promise, he is as innocent as an unconscious toddler of any wrongdoing related to theft. The second claim that stems from his insight- if I dare call it that- is that the sovereign being identifies with and respects those like him. He says, “And just as it will be necessary for him to honor those like him, the strong and dependable (who are entitled to make promises)- who makes promises seriously, rarely, and slowly…” (Nietzsche, 123). If people were to solely commit themselves to the promises they make as independent sovereigns to gain a sense of guilt, then society will be plagued with individual conflicts and blatant violation of societal norms which contradict individual promises. At the same time, the indivi