I am reading through some of this, and there is some good advice. With the caveat that I've only read a portion, I am put off by the anecdote about the Hyena a

I am reading through some of this, and there is some good advice. With the caveat that I've only read a portion, I am put off by the anecdote about the Hyena and the Wildebeest. This is where he seems to be attempting to justify social Darwiniasm with actual Darwiniasm, and bizarrely projects his own conception of morality onto both. He seems to believe that evolution is directional, and moral, which seems rather fanciful to me. The question of trying to understand morality based on principles of Nature strikes me as pointless. When the Hyenas kill the Wildebeest, for food, to them it is good. To the Wildebeest who was killed, it was undoubtedly bad, if anything can be called bad. To the Wildebeest who remain, perhaps in a more healthy overall environment, it might go either way. I'm not sure what my point is here, except that my intuition is that there are some basic principles of morality, and they are not synonymous with "success." This impulse of successful people to extend methods of achieving success to be more than that is weird.