Well, this depends on how you view god.
Is the world separate from god?
"God is in his Kingdom."
Keter is in Malkuth.
Malkuth is the bride or occasionally princess. Malkuth has no inversion, unlike other stages of the Sephirot.
Keter is the unknowable supremacy of the divine. Even the angels have not seen the face of the father.
Malkuth is also known as the kingdom - it is the created of God's creation and, thus, logically has no inversion as the creative processes end with it and destructive processes start with it.
Seek first the Kingdom.
If you wish to know God, you do actually have to embrace a deductive reasoning approach starting from The Kingdom - Malkuth - Reality. God is in His Kingdom.
Thus, by analyzing and seeking wisdom from within God's creation, one can grow closer to understanding that creator. This mirrors a destructive path, and the cringelords use this to justify demonic conduct as being some manner of enlightenment.
Unless you believe God to be something outside creation. In which case, this presents a curious theological platform as it implies the current state of affairs is either something outside of All Creation and/or that the role of the Lord is vacant and need be filled.
One should be very careful in doing either of two things: waiting for the lord to overturn creation to suit your moral preferences or two, insisting that the lord's faculties would allow you to be outside him.
Those who think there is a vacancy to be claimed and those who think god is not a factor in their current situation are equally mistaken. To reason from this "do as thou wilt" is less permissive than may have been intended, as there are many such wills. There may not be a divine intervention to prevent you from hedonistoc violations of others' wellbeing - but today's power and strength permitting such liberties may well give way to other factors. A bullet from the blue by disgruntled 'toys' is far more probable than a bolt from the blue.
But the role of religion is a unified platform of vision for society and its purpose for existing. Ancient core theology doesn't provide for what one should do so or what objectives should be prioritized so much as it describes the nature of the factors involved. "Is" statements do not lead to "should" statements on their own. A logic concept known as… I forget his name, but a guillotine. As opposed to Occam's Razor shaving off unnecessary postulates, the guillotine severs moral reasoning from factual reasoning. It's getting cold outside is a factual statement. I have a coat is a factual statement. I will freeze to death without the coat is a factual statement. I should put on the coat is a moral statement that accepts a-priori that I should avoid death. Logically, there is no requirement for me to do so.
This is a very important concept to understand when reviewing theological concepts and assessing the moral framework of others. Those a-priori assumptions that result in moralistic reasoning are not commonly discussed or openly revealed.