Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who are the stronger the moral or immoral.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
What is stronger morality or immorality. Ill make this straight forward and simple.


Who is the stronger individual the one who aligns with behaviours of
--- Cruetly , decadence, harshness, jealousies, obssession, material pleasures, superficial reasons ---

or the persons who aligns with
---- Kindness, deceny, sweetness, accepting, non indulging, simple joys, soulful meanings.---

Who is the superior and who is the inferior? Which category deserves to inherit and run the world?

Dont be shy call it like you really see it.
edit on 9-10-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
What is stronger morality or immorality. Ill make this straight forward and simple.


Who is the stronger individual the one who aligns with behaviours of
--- Cruetly , decadence, harshness, jealousies, obssession, material pleasures, superficial reasons ---

or the persons who aligns with
---- Kindness, deceny, sweetness, accepting, non indulging, simple joys, soulful meanings.---

Who is the superior and who is the inferior? Which category deserves to inherit and run the world?

immoral people deserve to be locked up in prison for life.

moral leaders will soon lead this world into a new era.

Moral leaders are superior to dead beat immoral greedy bankster leaders.

The problem is, what if the new world moral leaders are aliens from another world / dimension as seen in the TV series 'V' ?
edit on 9-10-2012 by Rapha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


the truly strong know they are capable

of both..

but control themselves..



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


ok Reeferman your sitting a bit on the fence there with that reply. Listen to Creedance and tokenin the whacky backy



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


the superior one is the one who crosses both lines without detriment to fellow man. As long as the detriment is to himself and one is comfortable with that then that is the person free of hate but has understanding of both sides. if you align yourself with just one group, you are blinded to the big picture and therefore dont deserve to be superior as you are judgmental. Just my view, interesting question.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RestlessNRG
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


the superior one is the one who crosses both lines without detriment to fellow man. As long as the detriment is to himself and one is comfortable with that then that is the person free of hate but has understanding of both sides. if you align yourself with just one group, you are blinded to the big picture and therefore dont deserve to be superior as you are judgmental. Just my view, interesting question.


On paper i cant dispute this is the best logical reply. The real world in which humans express themselves, and make their connection with, which is a personal experience within themselves and with the material objects interacting with their senses does not appear to be logical enough for people to exercise the level of sobriety of control to carry out successfully what is described in perfection on paper, being combining the best of both worlds.
edit on 9-10-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I'm not actually sure obsession or harshness are necessarily immoral things. The same way I'm not sure a moral person needs to be entirely kind or understanding of all people.

A moral person doesn't even need to be right sometimes. Look at the things some people do in the name of morality connected with religion and you get my idea. A moral act isn't always a correct act. I won't go too much further since something like this could require pages on pages of text ...

In a Mister Darcy kind of way, people can often be judged on their actions and convictions. What is right isn't always 'nice' exactly.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


the truly strong know they are capable

of both..

but control themselves..


My thoughts exactly Reeferman.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I generally don't believe in calling anything absolutely better than another.

It is probably in the interests of mankind to have leaders acting at a high standard of morality/ethic.

Strength, I do not see as usually correlative to morality code.

Edit: Rethought this a bit. Strength as an individual does not correlate to morality. Strength as a group does, in opinion.

edit on 10/9/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Moral and immoral acts exist, moral and immoral people do not. Who is stronger? Neither, they do not exist. Which act is more profound, the moral or immoral? In this society it is clearly the latter. Because of the abstraction from natural order we have an incorrect context from which definition is made. Everyone must kill to survive, it is the ironic twist of life and death. Death sustains life. Life sustains death. This realm is in for a huge wakeup call.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
If we consider your translation of these forms, Than my translation of yours would be;


Originally posted by AthlonSavage
What is stronger morality or immorality. Ill make this straight forward and simple.


Who is the stronger individual the one who aligns with behaviours of
--- Cruetly , decadence, harshness, jealousies, obssession, material pleasures, superficial reasons ---

The realm of the twins. good luck with that.




or the persons who aligns with
---- Kindness, deceny, sweetness, accepting, non indulging, simple joys, soulful meanings.---

The realm of Being. go figure.




Who is the superior and who is the inferior? Which category deserves to inherit and run the world?
Dont be shy call it like you really see it.


Answer: In this moment, they are, both equal.

But as far as morality or immorality, morality implies consciousness in knowing. immorality implies unconsciousness of what is.


Muzz



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


morality / immorality are only perceptions - they do not grant stength - they only give a point of refference to judge an act



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Need to experience both sides to be superior....

One of anything without the understanding of other is just empty and weak



Then again, keep in mind, some "immorality" is imposed by the current law. For example(this is what i could think at this moment lol).

A 30yr old man with 17 yr old girl is seen as immoral. But 30 yr old man with 18 yr old is seen as Moral?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 





The same way I'm not sure a moral person needs to be entirely kind or understanding of all people.


Really? That's generally what we mean when we say someone is 'moral'.

For instance, lets say you're having a 'bad day'; someone comes up to you, they seem a little flustered, nervous, downtrodden, or whatever, and they ask you a question in a timorous voice. You hear it - and quite possibly, a part of you finds this weakness repulsive - in the fashion of Nietzsches 'uber-mensche'. How do you respond? In most peoples view, and I would argue, objectively, the only proper response would be commiseration towards that persons emotional state of mind. To respond harshly, would be cruel and selfish, and so, immoral.

There are other examples as well. Say, instead of being approached by someone who is downtrodden, that you are approached by someone you find annoying or irritating. Is it ok then for you to express some irritation with this person? Is it ok for you to 'lower him a few pegs' in order to bring him within your own personal estimation of his worth? That too I believe could be called immoral, inasmuch as it an unnecessary act which injures another persons self esteem.




A moral person doesn't even need to be right sometimes. Look at the things some people do in the name of morality connected with religion and you get my idea.


This is where we come into conflict within the world of 'morals'. I think an objective moral exists and can be stated as 'do not do to others that which you would not want done to you' and the inverse 'do to others what you would want done to you'.

In the case of Islamic extremism, for example, they are CLEARLY acting immoral, otherwise there wouldn't be such debate within the Islamic world as to the moral and religious legitimacy of suicide bombings etc. There is an obvious conflict between the injunction to love, and the injunction to spread Islam. But in case persuasion towards conversion doesn't work, love should take PRECEDENCE to the hatred of martial jihad.

No one need deny another persons sense of meaning in order to live morally. For example, I disagree with my cousins choice to live a gay lifestyle, have gay sex etc, but this personal opinion of mine need not interfere with our relationship as cousins; my love for him takes precedence to my philosophical beliefs towards homosexuality. Thus, even though he is aware of my opinions, he never feels that I think of him or treat him any different from anyone else I know. This is because from his perspective, and his sense of right and wrong, he isn't doing anything wrong; of course, I disagree, but my disagreement cannot change his perception, and quite frankly is more likely to aggravate it and create a rift between us. Therefore, I respect and tolerate his views, and even if he needs moral or spiritual support, I help in the terms of HIS WORLDVIEW and not my own.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
In the short term I think immoral runs the show.
But in long term happenings I would think (and hope)
that the moral mind wins in the end.

edit on 9-10-2012 by sealing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Being a moralist is itself immoral, for one tyrannizes over himself and others to justify his own morality. He destroys pieces of himself, his animal nature, what he is, to becomes something he's not. Destroying pieces of himself, what he is told is evil, maybe by removing them through asceticism or other forms of self-betrayal, rather than controlling them, mastering them, and using them for better purposes, is the epitome of immoral.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Why should anyone answer when all you've really done is given your own examples of how you define morality?

The strong survive and the weak perish. It has nothing to do with any subjective ideas about morality.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The immoral depend on the moral. As much as the moral depend on the immoral. If one were to not exist anymore, the other would have no substance.

Just have to find a balance between the two that works for everyone.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


I completely disagree.

The person you describe is someone who gives moral advice or criticism of another person's behavior without awareness of the proper attitude to assume. So, for example, how do you bring it up? Is it at an appropriate time? Is your heart filled with love and genuine concern for the other? Do you speak gently and respectfully? If you have the proper intention in rebuking someone for immoral behavior, you will naturally speak softly and thoughtfully, and your reproach will be recognized for the good within it.

Also the time. Is he or she in a bad mood? If they are, wait to talk about it with them when they'd be more likely to respond amenably.

And circumstances too. Who are you criticizing and for what? If it's not someone you know who tries to live an upright way, then why bother them? Why preach to deaf ears? If however, you're in a situation in which the moral connection between yourself and someone else only broadly intersects, then you should stick to those areas where you agree, and not strive to impose your views. If you have views, you may share them, but you should do it in a almost secular way so as not to give the impression of a 'i am good, you are evil' dichotomy.

In short, criticizing others CAN be constructive when intelligently and modestly done. And any good society is a society which sustains a healthy dialogue about how one can best live.

And to further highlight the value of morals, this conversation in itself contributes to a clearer understanding and recognition of what in fact is moral. I mentioned some interesting examples. The premises of which is based on a psychological understanding of the other person and a certainty that ones advice would be recognized or at least would establish a recognition of an important moral that another has trampled upon.

I fail to recognize how someone could acknowledge a good without feeling an equal and corresponding hatred for the evil. So, if you have a fixed value such as 'i respect public property's, when you witness someone spraying graffiti, you would probably feel a natural distaste for the perpetrator. If I respect the concept of property, I will feel an anger for someone who disrespected the principle of self interest inherent in the notion of property, which is to say, hurting not only the person stolen from, but also the very concept of property and how it defends his right to possess property which others understand and respect.

There is great justification in being moral, and acting morally. It just need not always interfere. It's job is to gently guide ones life and rebuke one when he one acts wrongly. It's a wall, or restraint, which holds the human erect above his fellow animal friends.
edit on 9-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


I completely disagree.

The person you describe is someone who gives moral advice or criticism of another person's behavior without awareness of the proper attitude to assume. So, for example, how do you bring it up? Is it at an appropriate time? Is your heart filled with love and genuine concern for the other? Do you speak gently and respectfully? If you have the proper intention in rebuking someone for immoral behavior, you will naturally speak softly and thoughtfully, and your reproach will be recognized for the good within it.

Also the time. Is he or she in a bad mood? If they are, wait to talk about it with them when they'd be more likely to respond amenably.

And circumstances too. Who are you criticizing and for what? If it's not someone you know who tries to live an upright way, then why bother them? Why preach to deaf ears? If however, you're in a situation in which the moral connection between yourself and someone else only broadly intersects, then you should stick to those areas where you agree, and not strive to impose your views. If you have views, you may share them, but you should do it in a almost secular way so as not to give the impression of a 'i am good, you are evil' dichotomy.

In short, criticizing others CAN be constructive when intelligently and modestly done. And any good society is a society which sustains a healthy dialogue about how one can best live.

And to further highlight the value of morals, this conversation in itself contributes to a clearer understanding and recognition of what in fact is moral. I mentioned some interesting examples. The premises of which is based on a psychological understanding of the other person and a certainty that ones advice would be recognized or at least would establish a recognition of an important moral that another has trampled upon.

I fail to recognize how someone could acknowledge a good without feeling an equal and corresponding hatred for the evil. So, if you have a fixed value such as 'i respect public property's, when you witness someone spraying graffiti, you would probably feel a natural distaste for the perpetrator. If I respect the concept of property, I will feel an anger for someone who disrespected the principle of self interest inherent in the notion of property, which is to say, hurting not only the person stolen from, but also the very concept of property and how it defends his right to possess property which others understand and respect.

There is great justification in being moral, and acting morally. It just need not always interfere. It's job is to gently guide ones life and rebuke one when he one acts wrongly. It's a wall, or restraint, which holds the human erect above his fellow animal friends.
edit on 9-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


Good points. But yes we do disagree.

To me, trying to tyrannize over someone else's conduct, merely because one doesn't agree with how it's performed, is immoral. To attempt to shape someone else's life in such a manner, either seductively, forcefully or by threat of damnation, appears to me to be a power move. I think we've all felt a slight contempt for those who moralize over us, because in most cases we are being looked down upon as less than, as lesser humans.

This is why the threat of an all-knowing, all-powerful authority watching over us at all times has worked for so long, because otherwise, the masses would realize the tyranny in such an act, and would rebel against it if there was something there to rebel against.

That being said, I agree there is great justification in being moral—in having dignity, intelligence, forbearance, and self-respect—no tablets are needed for that. I don't think there can be such thing as a morality for all, and I would hate to be there if it came to fruition.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join