To deny the value of our actions = to be lesser men?

Being human is very hard. We are in essence animals, but we always try to alienate ourselves, separate ourselves form our animal nature. The good and bad before morality, argues Nietzsche, is not really a mode of morality, but a more factual, emotionless judgment between doing well and doing not-so-well. In his First Essay, Nietzsche attempts to reverse the seduction of language and call what we consider good in the Christian-era to be what is weak and deplorable. He argues that our morality is making us more “slavish”, “weak”, “mediocre”, “indifferent”, “Chinese”, and “Christian” (480). He recognizes in the modern men a diminution of man. What does he mean by “ a diminution of man” here? Does it mean the lessening of the subject, manliness, nobleness, or actions?

The diminution of man may signify a lessoning of actions or a “purification” of actions. Nietzsche uses the analogy of the bird of prey to illustrate the difference between an aristocratic mode of evaluation and a priestly one. The birds of prey deem what allows them to prey, namely their physique and their intelligence, as good. What is hindering them to get what they want is therefore bad. The sheep, who represent the priestly mode of moral evaluation, determines that the birds of prey are evil; and they deem themselves, who are the opposite of evil, are good.  This analogy demonstrates that the aristocratic mode of morality judges values based on actions. The more action is happening, the better it is. The priestly morality posits a doer behind the deed, creates a subject. Therefore, the less the doer has done, the better. The morality of the sheep makes it seem as if subjects have a choice between doing and not-doing. Doing more often hurts others because the doer does the deed out of self-interest. Therefore, not-doing makes a subject a better subject. In this way, the subject in the priestly mode of evaluation tries to purify itself of deeds. Nihilism comes about because we are “weary of man”. On the one hand, we are too used to the priestly evaluation of morality to think action is good; on the other hand, we are constantly trapped in our natural and aristocratic instinct to perform self-interested actions. We are constantly wanting to do less and less, denying moral value in the actions that we do, and becoming nihilists as well as action-less subjects. Being nihilists just means denying the value of our actions.

Is this a correct interpretation? Does Nietzsche mean that we are not becoming any less predatory or self-interested in our actions, but instead, we are becoming more and more in denial of the value of our actions? Is he saying that in an aristocratic mode of evaluation, we are constantly under the internal conflict between our animal instinct to act and our priestly teaching to not act?