Discussion Acting morally and agreeably just to ascend is more rational and respectable than doing it because society thinks "it's the right thing to do"

[Progeny of Horus]

I'm not necessarily trying to shit on objective ethics, I'm saying being a moral and likeable person without stopping for a moment to question why you are doing it is giga cucked and low IQ. It's especially the case if you're actively shunned and disrespected by the society you so much esteem. Conversely, if you consciously keep up a facade of likeability and uprightness to achieve a specified end, you're at least both logically consistent and honest with yourself. I never understood why redditoids complain when a short/ugly/autistic male stops being as sociable when things absolutely go wrong for him.

I know there is an instinctive aspect to acting like this, but it's a lowly and docile instinct that Nietzsche often called the 'gregarious animal', and it's one of the core reasons why modern society is so cucked and superficial. It actively shuns and seeks to destroy the antisocial 'blond beast' [it's a metaphor for the lion, has nothing to do with race] so long he is no Chad.

 

[Grodd]

No morals for your face

 

[ResidentHell]

Firstly there's no such thing as objective ethics

Secondly, adjusting your system of morals and ethics in agreement with normie consensus will not make you any more sexually attractive to women. Richard Ramirez, Wade Wilson, Jeremy Meeks; all of them were violent dark-triad gangsters and cold-blooded felons, all convicted for various crimes incl. murder and attempted murder. Yet they all have more women lusting after them than any sub5 or normie ever will

I think the woman's sexual instinct is very primitive, and it has little to no concern for your system of morals and ethics

 

[m3nt4Lbl0ck3d]

Morally yes, agreeably. Debatable.

What ever society tells you to do, do the opposite, unless you genuinely want to do it.