Maintaining cheerfulness in the midst of a gloomy task, fraught with immeasurable responsibility, is no small feat; and yet what is needed more than cheerfulness? Nothing succeeds if prankishness has no part in it. Excess strength alone is the proof of strength. A revaluation of all values: this question mark, so black, so huge that it casts a shadow over the man who puts it down -- such a destiny of a task compels one to run into the sunlight at every opportunity to shake off a heavy, all-too-heavy seriousness. Every means is proper to do this; every "case" is a case of luck. Especially, war.

At its core, eugenics is based on the idea that some lives, or genetic codes, are simply more valuable than others.

. Now I have no problem with someone saying that equality is pragmatically useful, i.e. we should pursue equality ...

Why exactly does it create conflict for someone to believe that equality is of supreme importance, but enforcing equally shitty lives on a populace would be a bad thing?

It's like if I asked a person if they liked money. After they say yes, I offer them five dollars if they let me shoot them in the foot. THEN, when they say "no, that's retarded" I go "AHA! So you DON'T like money!"

Do systems where people are treated equally in the eyes of the law flourish more than systems that are not?

You're blurring two different definitions of equality. There is the equality we strive for, and then there is the equality that is. On one level, we recognise that some people's circumstances are inhumane relative to the rest of our society and we want to do what we can to close that gap.

My personal belief is that there doesn't have to be a conflict there if we simply remember that those judgements do not have an objective status and are purely personal

You're trying to migrate the absolute fact of moral equality.

What matters is how your goods compare to everyone else’s goods.

I find it strange that you argue against moral absolutism and moral objectivity and then claim that there is an absolute fact about moral equality. How are these views consistent?

"Is Selfishness immoral?" and I think most people would say yes (but only others selfishness)

they could (I'm not saying they would) see you as a gullible dupe whom is easy to exploit

Stygmata points out the usual targets in such a discussion, Mountain Climbing, smoking, drinking, diet. However what about Driving? Consider the pollutants. Consider the number of car accidents and injuries to pedestrians, roads and motorways built over green belts. Does that mean that someone who drives a car is immoral?

What about children? Consider that most people do not pay enough taxes for their childrens inoculations, various health issues in development, social welfare and schooling let alone the risk that children spread lots of communicable diseases, are morally blank, and can do the most appalling things to others children and do not contribute. Does that mean that having children in immoral? I know people who think YES!

But they are sanctimonious and seem to belong to a far fringe of the ecology movement who long for Rousseau's archaic revival and are quite happy to promote the eradication of most of our species, yet don't practice what they preach and seem to me far more immoral when they start talking about "culls".

ideology based on morality leads people to these lazy and disgusting conclusions

fully formed systems of morality that have nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of absolute right and absolute wrong

It would not be impossible to imagine a society with a consciousness of its own power which allowed itself the most privileged luxury which it can have—letting its criminals go free without punishment. “Why should I really bother about my parasites,” it could then say. “May they live and prosper—for that I am still sufficiently strong!” . . . Justice, which started by stating “Everything is capable of being paid for, everything must be paid off” ends at that point, by covering its eyes and letting the person incapable of payment go free—it ends, as every good thing on earth ends, by doing away with itself. This self-negation of justice—we know what a beautiful name it calls itself—mercy. It goes without saying that mercy remains the privilege of the most powerful man, or even better, his beyond the law.