What all men ought to do

I care about my family. Is that moral? Hell no. It is just fate. It is. There is no “I could not care instead.” Specially not moral when you consider I let them hurt themselves or would burn millions alive just to get them out of a bad spot.

What I see as the ultimate morality in LotR is that Aragorn bows before the Hobbits, and Frodos pain at that, knowing what he knows of himself.
which makes Sam the moral of the story, which is no doubt how Tolkien intended it.

Still, this morality may be the ring itself.

On any case, I see morality as a wand to beat people over the heads with, but not as a reason to.

Of course. Still, consider that a family man does have a greater moral weight.

One doesn’t care for ones family because that is the moral thing to do - rather, if one happens by fate to be loyal to ones family, morality is a weapon that can be wielded with some force.

Morality is tradition, and family is the force at its basis.

Morality is the instinct of the herd, thus the rod of the shepherd.
As the meme goes, the shepherd is in bed with the wolf, fate.

“Morality”

That’s not morality. If morality cared it would be biased and so imoral. If it isn’t objective it isn’t morality.

You can come up with any excuses for the use of morality. Maybe the illusion of it has helped you deal with some situations where things you cared about were at risk.

But it weakens the sheep and the shepherd. And weakness detracts from your ability to further or even maintain or if we’re honest ensure the survival of what you care about.

If your gonna use a rod, use the objective truth of strategy.

I like that this thread is what The Republic would have been if Thrasymachus would have been Socrate and Socrate Thrasymachus.

So the shepherd isn’t moral? Or is he but just in a different way?

“That’s not morality. If morality cared it would be biased and so imoral. If it isn’t objective it isn’t morality.”

I see it the opposite way. Morality is necessarily arbitrary and thus only good as a tool to handle large crowds. I literally have no inkling of what objective morality is except “were all gonna die anyway”.

“You can come up with any excuses for the use of morality. Maybe the illusion of it has helped you deal with some situations where things you cared about were at risk.”

No, because I’ve always been regarded as the immoral one. Morality never was a help to me, only a swarm of bloodsucking mosquitos too small to hate or fear but too many to ignore. Only in the sense that mosquito bloodthirst is objective morality is objective - it exists. But it ain’t “good”.

“But it weakens the sheep and the shepherd. And weakness detracts from your ability to further or even maintain or if we’re honest ensure the survival of what you care about.”

Morality is a bias that allows the shepherd to reap the sheep wool.

The Moral are invariably The Weak; those who don’t endure the fact of their own bias without the hypocrisy of believing it to be objective.

As I see it the shepherds enterprise works with the sheep’s helplessness and this arrangement is called morality. The Wolf is what allows for the different interest of sheep and shepherd to appear like one and the same. This in turn is what makes the Wolf crucial to the shepherd.

In Biblical terms, without Satan, Jesus would be out of a flock.

In modern terms, without the rod of the evil Jews, Islam would be too boring to survive. The flock would scatter and the shepherd would be out of means to secure the wool/oil.

Morality and bad taste are physiologically the same.

Atrophied taste, taste of a creature that cant hunt down its food, that has to eat what a stronger being decides is good for it, has to turn bad, become something to which life is a problem.

Mass religion is the hallucination conjured to distract such life from itself, to keep it from seeking an end, to keep the wool coming.

Organized crime gave the first forms of morality.
“We hyenas ought to have what that lion has”

You say morality never helped you, but then you say it helps you reap wool.

I agree, morality is the illusion of objectivity. Not that objectivity doesn’t exist as reality, for example in strategy.

And also it is not true that morality only chains the weak and tasteless. If it were, why should I bother with it? Morality is at its funniest and most affecting precicely in the strong.

I have nothing against morality. It was fated. It contributed to my own making. But I don’t see a necessity for it to be fated in the future. Rather it is fated that I should show it for the disease it is. I rejoice at morality! Its downfall does not negate its existence or its place in fate.

Whoa there, not me it didn’t.
I certainly never benefitted in any way from morality. I am not the shepherd type, I am all wolf and black sheep.
No, morality has always been the one and only weapon people could muster against me. It is a stupendously irritating phenomenon.

Yes, strategy has more to do with gravity than with morality, it observes necessities, “laws of nature”. Things falling in their place.

You’re investigating it, you’re not actually throwing turds of morality around.
But yes, it does have entertainment value if you’re above it.

Morality did contribute to my making too, but purely by showing me the weakness of mankind.
I grew up in a place where morality was ultra pervasive, and it was absolutely the opposite of caring for actual beings. Morality as I saw it in people was only ever a crutch for the egoistic who are too sick to not be too ashamed of their egoism to just live it, so that they could avoid actually being useful or generous or kind or strong.

As it appears to me, morality always commands to deprive the healthy of their pleasures so that the weak do not have to suffer from witnessing enjoyment.

Why strong people have amoral Gods.

It always seemed to me, when Nietzsche pointed out that the mission of the weak is to take down the strong, that there is no reason this shouldn’t be remedied.

I associate it with his cry: where are the doctors of tomorrow?

Fuck it, I guess it’s time to set the weak on the path to strength.

For me personally its imperative to simply shed the weak.
Whoever or what I can not shed will be forced to be strong.

I notice that this is an order of activity that is truly seismic, and the efforts all around are comparable to the workings of the collective roots of a great forest, so it is for the simple reason that the standard I have set to be able to self-value at the level of purity I require is already causing such vast change in the fabric of force, that I do not even have opportunity to regard the weak at all, other than just as that stuff that was left behind a while ago and certainly has not been missed. Strength is fun if one can ride it, but yeah its a horse that did throw me off hundreds of times, before I learned to control it truly. This controlling is the true strength, the strength to dominate my strength with a set of values Ive decided upon, this is Might.

So, what a relief that must be for those among us who are only capable of contributing intellectual shallow posts.

After all, for all practical purposes, there are no such things. Every contribution just is what it is. What it only ever could have been.

On the other hand, what does that tell us about the contributions of those convinced that their own efforts reflect an intellectually sophisticated point of view?

Not that any us here can actually demonstrate it one way or the other.

Unless of course they can.

Unless of course they have no choice?

"
After all, for all practical purposes, there are no such things. "

How so?