The Amoralic Acid of L.A. Rollins


This gem of a quote from L.A Rollins’ The Myth of Natural Rights serves as something of a companion piece to yesterday’s post

If there are no unconditional “musts” or “oughts,” then there are no “duties” or “moral obligations.” Which means there is no “morality,” no “system of the principles and duties of right and wrong conduct.” Morality (like natural law and natural rights, which are specific examples of “moral” ideas) is a myth invented to promote the interests/desires/purposes of the inventors.

Morality is a device for controlling the gullible with words. “You ‘must not’ commit murder!” Why not? “Because murder is ‘wrong!’ Murder is ‘immoral!'” Bunk! Murder may be impractical or excessively risky or just not worth the trouble. There are all sorts of reasons why I might refrain from committing murder, even when I would like to do it. But murder is not “wrong.” Murder is not “immoral.” And the same goes for rape, robbery, assault, battery, burglary, buggery, bestiality, incest, treason, torturing children, suicide, cannibalism, cannabisism, etc. Moralist Alan Wheelis says, “Morality is a wall. On it is written: Whatever passion impel you, whatever goal you pursue, beyond this limit you may not go…” But if morality is a wall, it is a metaphorical or fake wall, a wall built with words, not bricks, a wall that will not stop us amoralists. So if you want to be safe from us…you’d better build some real walls.

Hopefully, Nine-Banded Books’ll getting round to reprinting Rollins’ mini-masterpiece later in the decade. Whilst you await the day, feel free to give my earlier musings on “morality” the once-over.

I reckon both this and the Bundy quote serve as a fine pair of addenda to my previous piece; as they say here in the East End, you don’t get many of those to the pound!


This entry was posted in Amoralism, Personal, Perspectivism, Quotes, Texts of Interest and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

7 Responses to The Amoralic Acid of L.A. Rollins

  1. To reduce some points to absurdity:

    Obviously ted bundy liked killing and necrophilia, why the fuck else would he have gone on such a huge fucking rampage? What the fuck is the god damned point here? How is it any different from a lion taking down a gazelle or some shit? Oh..because he had a 120 IQ and could rationalize? bleck. If my cock had a 20,000 IQ I’m pretty sure it would still mostly sing the same cocky song. Also, that is def not a real recorded convo, but it doesn’t really matter except that it could make you look like a fucken sucker.

    It doesn’t have anything to do with you, tho. You aren’t ted fucking bundy, now are you? Is he your fucking daddy Cardinal Bishop Guru Pimp? Is it ok to be ‘religious’ as long as you’re some kind of trite immoralist?(no.) You’ve already read Stirner, do you really need more abstract goading? Or do you still struggle to find your own confidence and dignity? Nothing to be ashamed of! But you should at least admit it..otherwise you might really start confusing bundy for a priest. And he is a real ‘catholic’, it seems.

    Caveat – seeing ‘bundy’s perspective’ is a lot different than agreeing with him or allowing him to proceed. In a way it’s trivial..we understand that a bear might obliviously maul a loved one..but do we thus cuddle the bear and sympathize with it? MmmmMMMmMm! Get it a box o hearts candies n stuff. Remember – just because someone does something on their own accord doesn’t mean that it should be “OK” with you…..right! God I hope you at least agree with that.

    And ah, so nothing is ‘unconditional’. So you don’t need to eat or shit tomorrow, right? If you loved someone you wouldn’t need to worry about protecting them, either, since it’s “optional”. You know..purely conditional. Choice for choice’s sake, oh yeah. I even have choices about my fucking choices!

    What is referred to here as ‘morality’ is really the ‘morality’ of nitwits..very dull people who must rely on simple durrr rules because their minds can’t handle anything beyond that. But full and true morality starts with you, not with rules. It’s time to take the word back – if we don’t then we’re gonna have to come up with a new world to replace it, anyway. Nihilism isn’t a real choice’’s just self negation, the failure to integrate the self probably mostly due to weakness and fear yet somehow still with the disdain for any religion..a strange and unfortunate mix. I am still overcoming my own weakness.

    Sometimes ‘choices’ are absurd, and when they are..they might as well be unconditional. The art of life is in figuring out which ‘choices’ are real choices and which aren’t at all. Until then, you can only be some kind of nihilist. If there is no condition to you..then you aren’t anything at all. We also have the ‘choice’ to whip our own balls ‘just because’…and let me be the first to ask…


    It’s just…motha fucken…freeEEEedommm!

    PS But honestly dude I’ve made all these points before and..well…don’t worry I won’t bother to make them again.

    • MRDA says:

      Isn’t that a wee bit of an overreaction on your part?

      • Nah. I can see that there’s no point in reasoning.

        • MRDA says:

          You’re just being rather knee-jerk today.

          • I have to disagree..when I see examples of Ted Bundy being used I just asked myself…why? Is he supposed to be a hero? An extreme moral example? I never consider reacting to such ugliness as overreacting. You must also understand my over-the-top style as intentional comic bombast.

            I found myself disgusted on multiple levels and also ready to use hyperbole in order to make some points. I don’t know if I succeeded.

            I think my points are pretty strong and I will just let them sit there. Make of them what you will. Try not to take them too personally, it wasn’t meant that way..more to shock you into fresh perspectives.

            Realize too that they are a much broader ‘reaction’ than to just any single entry, but to general ideas and lines of reasoning.

          • MRDA says:

            The disclaimer I wrote before the quote makes it clear what aspects of Bundy (or his fictional counterpart) I was spotlighting. Beyond that, I generally trust my readers to see where I’m coming from, even if they vehemently disagree.

    • MRDA says:

      “Caveat – seeing ‘bundy’s perspective’ is a lot different than agreeing with him or allowing him to proceed.”

      You’re “preaching to the converted” here: I’m not someone who digs serial killers (or reimaginings thereof) qua serial killers.

      As for “taking back “morality””, I’d prefer a less loaded term.

Leave a Reply