Pedro I Rengel wrote:You say morality never helped you, but then you say it helps you reap wool.
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.
I agree, morality is the illusion of objectivity. Not that objectivity doesn't exist as reality, for example in strategy.
Yes, strategy has more to do with gravity than with morality, it observes necessities, "laws of nature". Things falling in their place.
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.
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.
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.
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.