It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by AthlonSavage
the truly strong know they are capable
of both..
but control themselves..
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?
Dont be shy call it like you really see it.
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.
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)