I'd say this case is closer to the "restraint" factor, but it reminded me a little of this topic and past Systematic topics. Even much of the "Fight Club Angst" fits around similar themes.
10,000 max limit was broken again. Since it took awhile to write I'll put it on a note pad, but I'll probably never get around to posting it, cause I don't feel like doing all the bullshit required to clarify who said what, in a post count fashion.
This whole argument is great. When I wrote the OP I never took into consideration the cost morality and restraint would have on a mass scale. I exclusively limited my perspective to individuals or small band of people. To maximize it's effectiveness, I think it's best kept that way. Adapting morality on a large scale forces many who don't agree with it to follow by default. Self Restraint and morality wont yield any benefits unless the person is dedicated, if not it really just breeds contempt for the moral/restraint system. It's just counter productive to have these values in place to make us strong/cooperative if it's just creating more and more weak links. I can't agree more with Turncoat about the current system having a considerable effect on a portion of society and I say this from personal experience. The moral script I devised was partially motivated out of spite for the current one. I wanted simple, more direct joys and ways of conflict, soon it became a need. To cope I explore abandoned places looking for conflict, I walked around with a ski mask on at night around the bad areas of town, I took the hardest job in the toughest branch of the military all because of it.
TL;DR
While I see the benefits in self restraint and morality, when applied to a larger scale more issues arise that counteract the main benefit of such a system.
"Your interpretation is flawed as usual and you're suggesting morality means weakness."
No more or less flawed than yours if you really look into how little we could possibly hope to know from the sheer bias variation that causes there to be no real truths.
Morality itself isn't always weakness, and for many may require strength to achieve, but the outcome of those efforts breeds it, pushing that inevitable outcome with the means of spreading towards others like a virus.
"Turncoat, not saying this out of spite but in this world, you are the weak."
I suppose you see yourself as the strong? 
In this kind of world, almost everyone is the weak with little room to change that.
For me, that depends on how you view opportunists. All the same, regardless of not seeing myself as some sort of alpha-conqueror, that doesn't negate my views. At least in a might makes right sort of world I'd feel more inspired to better myself than one where most forms of self improvement have been trivialized into mere aesthetics.
There's little room for any real passion anymore when you look past the veils in place. Life has been reduced to existing for the sake of it while the very narrow genre that it's become plays reruns. Some people are content with watching the same drivel on repeat, but overtime it's become tiresome.
I will agree with you on one point of this: It definitely isn't spite that had you say that.
"No one said immorality doesn't exist, but rather immorality is a cause of undoing, and on many levels."
What we're building towards is a broken thing. We could stand to have some things undone instead of glorifying and exaggerating a losing prospect.
"For instance, I assume you're a single bisexual"
You assume much (and tangent wildly from time to time). I'd say I'm bicurious at most, and I'm dating someone currently (from this forum actually).
Women tend to make power appear sexier than men do.
"and I would tell you it's not good to stick your fingers in your anus, because it's foul, but that doesn't prevent you from doing it."
Toys are better from being easier to clean and from having less drag when compared to the pads of a person's fingers.
Interesting that you'd choose to conjure that sort of visual. You must have quite a lot of interesting visuals in your head about me~
"You can argue how those monks have no purpose for what they've done, while it dispels your view on how morality makes us soft, you ought to realize it's not something you're equipped to correctly access."
According to who exactly? All we can carry is our own biased perspectives. There's no way of really telling who is and isn't right in a case like this, there is only our conjecture. By mine, it appears as if they are building something meant to do nothing.
"You'd end up with no answer if they asked you about your purpose and reasoning."
It's not that I have the absence of an answer, it's that my answer is that there isn't one. There is a difference, as the wise are the first to say they do not know the answer. While I can't say that I really know anything, I can say that I carry some strong assumptions that don't leave the cup completely empty.
"I'd argue what that depicts is an "outcome of immorality"."
Morality serves to make people more passive, it allows structure to be put into place while we grow softer, while we stagnate. An immoral person in power loves good people to be their passive, law-abiding, and receptive subjects. A "Savage" world couldn't become that while one where everyone is good can become that from a lack of presented conflicts.
"You say the life of the warrior is far more rewarding, well it's fair to have your own opinion, though you're no warrior."
This isn't exactly a setting that endorses being one. If it were, those born into it would be of stronger stock, and if I were born into such a setting that would be no different. As is, training to become something stronger is not too different from ego masturbation in this day and age.
"In a world where the strong survive, there is an inevitability where sooner or later the champion's time is up."
At least they'll have lived at all. A life without real conflicts isn't living, and the current setting gives almost no room for it without the punishment being swifter or being a direct follower of another's agenda. This age of control is a slow death of the body with a fast death of the mind. We're closer to a dystopia than a utopia, but the means of that path aren't as clear for most as they ought to be.
With how you phrase that, it's as if you think a shorter life is a wasted one. Why aim to live forever when one's ability to enjoy life has a half-life within itself?
"but my answer to that goes beyond your comprehension which would only have you projecting confusion and ridicule, due to you being uninitiated."
You're so cute sometimes Spatial, inevitably debasing yourself with the use of your usual line of expected ad hominem attacks.
"For you, If you don't get to be a special snowflake, it's your fault, regardless of how many people there are."
...how is that my fault? That's not something we can really control, only something we can convince ourselves of in the name of preserving our fragile egos.
We aren't special, and with there being more and more people how special we aren't magnifies through the overall decreased need for us that comes of it. We're easily replaceable cogs.
"Overpopulation is a myth. and the population growth is slowing down, and eventually will start to reverse, just like it is in Japan. More people are single than are in relationships, less than half of children today are in traditional families. and of course, less people are having children. It's happening."
It could be argued that Japan's issues lie in the culture itself more than it's overpopulation.
"It's too long Turncoat. If you think the strong surviving is the better struggle, you're looking out for your own predators, cause in that case you'd already be dead. I'll tell you straight up how foolish you are."
In a world like this, most people are either deluded into following an illusion that they tell themselves to keep going, or the epiphany that reveals such a thing has them dying or dead already while they are still alive.
At least in a setting like that there's more room to have the blood boil, to have distractions from the uselessness of existence, to be given the room to be distracted by trying to live instead of being the poster children of the path towards either inertia and stale repetitions repackaged in deceptive enough ways to make people think it's new or that of a trained tool to be used by another.
"I personally think we have it better than the fish, who has to eat smaller fish, before a bigger one takes him."
Fish lack the burden of awareness. They are better off through lacking that sort of degenerative curse of the mind. They don't plan, they exist until they expire without the room to ponder why. It's a more innocent existence that I'd argue in many cases is preferable over the cursed mind of the human condition.
At least in a more primal existence, there's enough going on to distract a person from pondering more than they need to survive. Knowledge is enriching in the moment but damning in the long run.