[henry quirk]

"What I have a problem with is redistricting the jungle so all of the banana trees end up on plots belonging to 1% of the monkeys. Then they try to sell their bananas to the monkeys without any for exhorbitant fees and then claim the hungry monkeys are hungry because they're lazy and stupid."


HA!

All: irrelevant.

I get that's what irks you (and many others): so what?

The banana-holders HAVE the bananas...if the non-holders were too stupid, too slow, or too trusting to stop them, then that's on THEM.

What's embedded in your post, Storm: the banana-holding monkeys are liars, greedy, manipulative, and zealous.

A good assessment, but: so what?

Righteous indignation is well and good but foundationless as morality is a fiction with no more 'umph' to it than the one or ones promulgating it can muster up (mustering up 'force', 'power', 'might', the fist, the stick, the knife, the gun, the bomb, etc.).

If Joe the monkey lies, cheats, steals, manipulates to get his bananas AND he has the craftiness to see his lies and theft are not only sanctioned by *'law' but largely applauded by the majority, then that IS the way it IS.

Arguing with Joe (or sitting on his doorstep, crying) will net the occupying monkey exactly what he or she already has: nada.

The lesson: if you want the banana-holder's goods then you will have to take them by way of a superior 'might', or though a more cleverly implemented lesser 'might'.

Now: the moral argument CAN work if understood AS an expression of might...in this case: the moral argument is meant to persuade (as in: cajole, confuse, manipulate, lie, cheat, etc.). The non-holder works to direct other non-holders to form an 'army' so that this 'army' can storm the tree and take the bananas...the manipulator will wax poetic and be oh-so charismatic and lay out a case for fairness and justice and whatever, but the argument is just the method, not the actual drive, which -- again -- is envy.

My point: your distaste is driven by envy...envy for bananas...envy for the quickness, and slyness of the banana-holder.

Your mistake is assuming your 'morality' is 'real' and shared ultimately by everyone...it's not.


As for "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!” no, not by a longshot.









*codified morality...equally absurd...another fiction...only as 'good' as the enforcement.

This is an amoral world and utopia is a (crack)pipe dream.