OutRadulous sent me something really interesting today...

... hitherto we have been permitted to seek beauty only in the morally good - a fact which sufficiently accounts for our having found so little of it and having had to seek about for imaginary beauties without backbone==== - As surely as the wicked enjoy a hundred kinds of happiness of which the virtuous have no inkling, so too they possess a hundred kinds of beauty; and many of them have not yet been discovered.

==

from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s. 468, R.J. Hollingdale transl

When I'm good, I'm good, but when I am bad I am really really good====

==

Nietzsche's arguments apply primaily to an archaic definition of goodness. He is not speaking of subjecive goodness or creative goodness most assuredly. He is speaking primarily of victorian religious goodness.

Such morality is rather silly, tending to create a gap between personal morality and socially accepted morality, leading to the lure of the forbidden or taboo.

The idea that some set of moral standards can apply to, and demanded from, all humans is like enforsing unnatural behavior in natures animals.

Ones satisfaction and happiness ultimately becomes the legacy they leave, which grows from the love and respect they have earned in their life, which grows from the character they exhibit in their life.

My own satisifaction comes from being a perfect asshole|, lol....ug.

In any case, a persons sence of what is good and bad grows and changes as they grow. What is bad today can be good tomorrow. Subjective morality is is not absurb, it is just variable.

Morality, or ethics, of a person are simple those behaiviors which they believe will lead to TheGoodLife.

There is an objective bases for some moral choices if we consider creation good and destruction bad.