Anti-moralism is misunderstood in common interpretations because the majority of people misrepresent it as immoralism. Anti-moralism is not the opposite of moralism, it denies the absolutist premise of the moralist paradigm. Moralism and immoralism are reflections of each other, defined by opposition to the other – anti-moralism is the rejection of the foundation that both stand on.
A rejection of morality shouldn’t simply lead you to do the exact opposite of whatever is labeled as moral – this in itself still defines you by being the inverse of the mob’s morality – but to be able to use discernment so that you can focus on results and not just wallow in a sea of intent. Being an anti-moralist doesn’t mean you try to be immoral, it means you reject the intentions of morality as an end in itself. The moralist makes everything into absolutes and doesn’t respect the relationship between relative, objective, and absolute which bastardizes objective discernment. Everything polarizes into extreme absolutes or complete relativity in ways that feed off each other. We see this with liberal stances, like being against the death penalty yet making excuses for murder based on how “oppressed” someone is because their emotional tier system of morality places fairness above other types of morality. The value system of morality is always subjective but is applied in an absolutist fashion. There is no gauge to determine how important some morals are over others, this is why moralism can lead to inaction in the face of horrible cycles instead of ending them.
Some will make fairness their ultimate goal no matter if making unequal things equal or “fair” is impossible and leads to worse outcomes for all; others will hold all life universally sacred no matter how destructive that life is. The moralist paradigm leads to the separation of ends and means – the means are all that matters to moralists regardless of the results they lead to. Intentions are all that matters, and morality becomes and end goal in itself. There are some immoralists that are reactive to this in that they place ends as more important than means, but the means they resort to in order to achieve such ends often prevent the desired end. The intended ends are just as futile if the means are not in line to get there.
Means and ends are inseparable – the anti-moralist knows this, while the moralist paradigm only allows intentions, whether for means or ends, to matter. The problem with this is that intentions will always be praised while bad results are deflected in ways that cause compounding dynamics between groups. There will never be self-correction or agency as long as only intentions matter. Moralism and immoralism are based off of the same premise and are a false dichotomy because both of their ultimate conclusions converge at tolerance.
Reality isn’t an all-or-nothing and is beyond good and evil. The moralist is focused on trying to find what is good and the immoralist is focused on trying to find what is evil, and both take their relative stances in an absolute fashion in response to each other. When people seek to “understand” for the sake of moral rationalization toward preventing perceived cycles, nothing will ever be resolved because it results in an unintentional projection of their own agency and biases into the cycle itself. This is destructive and regressive to all who engage in it. Moralism perpetuates this projection in a way that continually builds up excuses for destructive results (we see this with leftists and their focus on fairness or changing conditions for primitives) or results in inactivity to the point of self-destruction (many Christians will tend to lean this way, especially with issues like the exponentially expanded primitive world and preventing their migration by force like sinking refugee ships headed for Europe or actively fighting back against leftism) because intentions for their morality prevent the results wanted.
Morality will always lead to some type of tolerance, and immorality is asking for the tolerance of anything and everything destructive. The two will continually collide in opposition to each other or implode by converging at tolerance on increasing scales to parallel the increase of technology and acquired knowledge of civilization. The reason for this is that there is a direct causal relationship between the increase of the moralist paradigm (and immoralist reactions to it) and how easy life is for a person. The less people must try to survive the more removed they are from reality and begin to indulge in hedonistic moralism. Projection replaces discernment for those who are too displaced from the realities of life, natural selection, and the food chain.
An example (this picture is from a facebook page I like):
This picture is a good example of the common misconstruing of anti-moralism with immoralism. Many will relate this picture to Nietzsche, but it’s far more reflective of people who claim to follow his work and instead take it out of context to their own ignorant ends. The cults of great men tend to completely bastardize the work of their icon because they either do not try to understand the perspective it was written through (instead using it as an excuse for their own desires) and/or are incapable of understanding the concepts altogether but engage in the field as a novelty. This is why it does a disservice to intellectual discourse (thinking) to approach these topics democratically by insisting every single person be able to read them, which is something Nietzsche mentioned in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Is there a drought in the area and the other person or their family have limited water to survive? Then They should not be faulted for turning him away. In times of survival that’s necessary and natural.
Is this during a war? If so turn him back to his own men as to not take away supplies from yours.
Is this an illegal immigrant that’s continually invading your land? Withholding aid will deter future migration.
Is this person thirsty because they are running from something? Are they a known child molester or traitor to their own people? Give them a bullet instead of water.
In the context of this image, where it seems the person is withholding for no reason other than to mock the man and showcase (im)morality, I would not have any “moral” qualms with the thirsty man taking the water by force. In fact, it is quite respectable to see someone fight for life instead of roll over and beg the world to save them.