Nietzsche's Thought of Morality as Anti-nature

I accidentally came by some of the articles that I was really interested in when I searched natural and unnatural. They were about Nietzche's thought towards morality as anti-nature.  I was attracted by the seemingly "unreal" but actually logical reasoning, and the paragraphs below are my thoughts pumped up in my head while I was reading: 

People always question the point that whether one should view morality as anti-nature. While some people argue that there should be and exists moral pronouncements that human beings need to follow and preach, particularly in a Christian-sight, the gospel in the Bible and the praise of God. Other philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, point out that morality is anti-nature. Nietzsche considered moral rules and laws as a stratagem of the weak to dupe the strong. He also believes that morality is the negative valuation of life and the attempt to suppress passions, and will-to-power is the basic internal drive that dictates all human thoughts and actions. It is people's instinctual need to manifest power over nature, to immerse ourselves in the belief that we can understand the world.

Nietzsche clarified why morality is anti-nature by providing the points that passion shouldn't be castrated and extirpated, religious morality prohibit various forms of sensuality and the accepting of instinct with numerous evidence.

Like he said, all passions have a phase when they are merely disastrous, when they drag down their victim with the weight of stupidity. While a strong-willed and reasonable person can dip into the passion, reap the benefits but avoid drawbacks, most people are not so strong and controlled, their passions tend to take over them and people turn out to suffer the results, people craft moralities that label the passions themselves as evils instead of their weaknesses, in other words, it is often the very weakest who impose absolutist and often irrational barriers against that which tempts them most, then hypocritically declare themselves immune.

 Religious morality also prohibits various forms of sensuality, he clarifies and capsulizes his view of the opposition of religious morality by saying that “ant-natural morality—that is, almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached—turns, conversely, against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts, now secret, now outspoken and impudent" (Nietzsche). which means that one should learn to respect his instinct and try to go with what one feels to do instead of what one ought to do.

            At the end of the excerption, Nietzsche points out that one should live his unique life by the very natural instincts and be aware of the four great errors which are confusing the effect and cause, positing the mental thought as a cause, positing causes where there are none and considering “free will” as the cause. These are the factors that fooled people to take the views of Moses, Aristotle, Jesus, Muhammad or any other kind of godly hero images for granted to seek true virtue, according to Nietzsche, truly good deeds had to exist, like love, beyond the moral rules and laws.

In addition, Stephen Jay Gould’s view of nature and morality is in the same direction as Nietzsche’s but slightly different. He questioned the existence of god by presenting the dilemma that “If God is good and if creations reveals his goodness, why do nature’s victim suffer?" (Gould). His also uses the life span of parasitic ichneumon wasp to illustrate a scientific view that natural lives such as animals are living nonmoral lives. From Gould's words our failure to discern the universal good we once expected does not record our lack of insight or ingenuity but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms, one can safely draw the conclusion that Gould's viewpoint supports Nietzsche’s thesis that no morality exists in the very natural world and its creatures, yet at least animals, are living by their very instinct, they can be content without being rewarded the satisfaction of obeying the rules of religious morality.