Who are the stronger the moral or immoral.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


The moral is stronger because they actually have SELF-CONTROL something that the immoral lacks.

Now, who is more powerful? The immoral because they have more freedom to do whatever they want.

That is the reality and not just my opinion...

I believe the "moral" would be the superior. As if you are moral you are likely to see the truth, to see the love of the universe. They seek not to rule "here" but they seek to rule elsewhere, like water they would bend around the "immoral" even subjugated to the immoral physical pain. The moral would show unstoppable forgiveness, and when they ascend they will know the truth, they will "rule" "there" where here is of little importance, just a veil covering the mind.

May all beings be released from suffering.
May all beings be released from suffering.
May all beings be released from suffering.

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.

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

People have a little of every trait you listed. As to answer the question...which group listed is the SUPERIOR OR INFERIOR...NEITHER! That is because neither GROUP EXISTS! Split Infinity

Since immoral people are in vogue and power it's harder to be moral and requires discipline.

Originally posted by ExpansiveMind
I believe the "moral" would be the superior. As if you are moral you are likely to see the truth, to see the love of the universe. They seek not to rule "here" but they seek to rule elsewhere, like water they would bend around the "immoral" even subjugated to the immoral physical pain. The moral would show unstoppable forgiveness, and when they ascend they will know the truth, they will "rule" "there" where here is of little importance, just a veil covering the mind.

May all beings be released from suffering.
May all beings be released from suffering.
May all beings be released from suffering.

edit on 10-10-2012 by ExpansiveMind because: Grammatical Error.

I love this post and this prayer/affirmation. May all beings be truly free, and progress far beyond harm and suffering.

reply to post by ExpansiveMind


The moral are loving and kind, they seek not to controlled and therefore will be controlled by aggressors (The Immoral Ones).

reply to post by AthlonSavage

since opposites attract, neither group could be considered immoral, only their actions.
what is immoral and smells of a "superiority complex" is for humans to claim/believe they are separate and above the animal kingdom in which we all reside.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


amazing thread. we are one

reply to post by arpgme


But it matters not to the "moral" of "this" world. The "moral" see the next and care not for this fallacy.


May all beings be infinite and timeless.
May all beings be infinite and timeless.
May all beings be infinite and timeless.

reply to post by ExpansiveMind

In my experience...those who proclaim themselves MORAL...tend to be the GREATEST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY! Split Infinity

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

The moral is stronger because they actually have SELF-CONTROL something that the immoral lacks.

Now, who is more powerful? The immoral because they have more freedom to do whatever they want.

That is the reality and not just my opinion...

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

So can i rephrase to you what is the best option strength of Self control? or
Strength to do what ever want?

Because you are indicating the reality will be that people taking the beatings in life will be "from" those who have the power to do it to them. Because the people taken the beatings are taking the beatings they develop personal strength from that, its like building a resistance to a virus.

It reminds me of comic i read as a child where these people are by bad luck sucked into and caught into hell.
To leave it they must journey through different lands with each different land having a bridge of sorts to cross to get to the next.
The first bridge they encounter is a river of fire. They must walk through it to get to otherside.
The travellers jump into the fire river chained togther. Only one is the strongest to get to other side and hes all charred. He pulls others out of the fire. The regenerate because its hell and there is no death just continous agony and torment.

Only the strongest will pass all bridges and leave hell. Only those with the strongest personnel energy make it out. But what you are indicating it is the weakest of the weak who are the ones who are running hell.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


It depends on the situation regarding what can you get away with. If I was playing life as a RPG personage I would be Chaotic Neutral aligned

The characteristics you define are simple social morays, they have no meaning beyond a social context and the judgment of others and your own internal evaluation of your actions. There was a similar discussion recently regarding good vs evil, this is parallel to that, concepts are volatile even more if they are social and cultural concepts.

The best philosophy is way simpler do and treat others the way you like to be treated, any deviation of this simple motto is unjustifiable beyond the concept of the good of the many outweigh the good of the few applied to democratic system in a tribal size group of people, no more than ~160 (it should not be applied more complex systems beyond the serving as the basis to establish a decision structure based on direct representation across an fractal like tree that can expand to cover any size social system). Utopia.

Originally posted by clarky4933
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

amazing thread. we are one

Yes indeed but leave it to ATS to over analyze a simple question..
Amazing indeed..

reply to post by ExpansiveMind


And while they don't care, the immoral will control the world which was my point.


reply to post by AthlonSavage


Yes the weakest are running the world.

The rulers of the world have fallen deeply into the chains of greed needing more and more without ever feeling satisfied creating their own hell, and because of their greed they turn nature into what THEY want it to be and force humans (and even animals something) to do what THEY want them to do.

All of this because they are weak and controlled by greed. They create their own hell always seeking for more and never feeling fulfilled.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by ExpansiveMind

 

And while they don't care, the immoral will control the world which was my point.


reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

Yes the weakest are running the world.

The rulers of the world have fallen deeply into the chains of greed needing more and more without ever feeling satisfied creating their own hell, and because of their greed they turn nature into what THEY want it to be and force humans (and even animals something) to do what THEY want them to do.

All of this because they are weak and controlled by greed. They create their own hell always seeking for more and never feeling fulfilled.

Whats the answer you reckon then? Do you have a solution? If there isnt a solution what then are we hedgehoged?

reply to post by AthlonSavage



Being a part of nature, humans can be destructive or creative, right now humans are destructive destroying everything - we can speak out - we can protest - but in the end - it is what it is.

Make laws to govern humans, and the governors themselves will become corrupt, to balance the evil that humans are forced to not do by laws.

Do something nice, and another will still be suffering in pain with no one to help them.

Make someone happy and another is still sad.

It all balances,

The body has no free will it is governed by instinct (survival).
The soul has no free-will it is governed by intuition (emotion and intention)
Then there is the true YOU that experience it all.

Life is happening all as one energy flowing in different patterns as different extensions of different beings, planets, solar systems, etc.

You are being lived by life. You are EXPERIENCING the human experience.... You are EXPERIENCING the soul experience. You are the EXPERIENCE and unless you keep a mind of invitation inviting life/experience to happen - you will always fall short of joy - be kicked from one "side" of happiness to the other "side" of sadness unless you understand that balance happens and you appreciate it and invite it to be as it is.

And understand your balance, having a comfortable life, knowing what is absolutely unacceptable for your life and what you can deal with and learn to love as reality experience.

There are many different way I conceptualize this:

"Everything is perfect"
"All is well"
"See the beauty in ALL things"
"I invite life to happen"

You live. You do. Don't Expect. Life Happens. Repeat.

And without expectation you are a lot happier.


I am not living life; life is living me. Life is not something that I am holding on to, it is something that's flowing through me.

It is flowing through me, expressed as this human body living this human experience typing this response to you.

the strongest would be the one who can employ either mentality without hesitation, and without remorse.

To be all things necessary. A saint, or the devil himself. The one that can be all those things and still be himself at the end of the day.

In short the jack of all trades.

reply to post by arpgme


Im sure you have a direct channel to God or something your answer is challenging my brain, with these thoughts fluxing through it>


Humans are given Experience but no free will.
A humans experience can be good or bad
if a good thing happens, then automatically a bad thing will happen somewhere to ensure they overall system remains balanced.
if humans wiped themselves out it will have a good effect on nature
And try and stay on the good side of the balance even if you know it will hurt someone else.

Your life is a channeling experience, i see that now. You may even be a God and not even be aware you are channeling everyones existance through you. i have to sleep on this now you have swamped my mind tonight.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

To me, trying to tyrannize over someone else's conduct, merely because one doesn't agree with how it's performed, is immoral.

You're talking about a different situation than I am I think. If the issue is criticizing someone for a a way in which they performed something, than it doesn't sound like a very obvious case of immoral behavior.

Let me give you an example of where I think moralizing applies and where it doesn't. I already mentioned that it's important with whom youre speaking to; so for instance, between my sister and myself, sometimes she'll criticize me for over-swearing, and I respect and accept the criticism because she knows I find swearing too much to be a lack of self control; at some times, I allow myself to swear, but when every other word coming out is swearing, I accept and recognize the rebuke as valid. With her, if I find her to be acting irrationally or unfair in any situation, I'll tell her because I know she strives for moral clarity in herself and in her action; but this advice is expressed in love and maturity, between two people fairly mature in regards to their spiritual lives, so it doesn't get lost.

Now, say I have a fairly good idea at what kind of person you are. Unless you did something that was outright wrong, for example, we went to a restaurant and you chewed out the waiter in an unfair and humiliating manner, I would speak up and tell that acquaintance of mine that it wasn't fair or nice for him to do that. This situation definitely deserves a recognition of the immorality of that action. But, if it's a personal question, for example, my cousin is gay and I personally disagree, for metaphysical reasons, with his choice to live a gay lifestyle, have gay sex, I restrict my moralizing to areas which will benefit him as a person. He and I are close, so he'll appreciate advice from like "be a good person, help your mom, be there for your niece and nephew", but he will completely come to disdain me if I start telling him "your lifestyle is completely opposed to natural law - you should strive to come to a deeper understanding of yourself in order to overcome this emotional imbalance" - I know absolutely NOTHING good would come of it, and this would thus be a case of misplaced moralizing; you may have a point, but the worldview of the the person you're speaking with is completely incompatible with that perspective. Here, morality requires you to understand whats of greater value: the principle, or the person? Should I sacrifice the individual, my cousin whom I love, to the principle, or should I make a little compromise by ignoring this issue in my relationship with my cousin, because love, and peace, surely take precedence to brandishing the sword of righteousness before him. So, i never bring it up, and he only vaguely knows I'm more conservative minded in this respect than he is. It doesn't detract from other parts of him, his incredible altruism, his relationship with his nephew and niece etc. He's a good person, therefore, I consider the proper moral to be curtailing my perspective in order to make room for a strong relationship. If he ever needs advice, I give it to him in the context of his worldview.

forcefully or by threat of damnation

Don't get me wrong, I don't like people throwing 'you're going to go to hell' threats either. It's stupid and its entirely meaningless to the person who hears it.

I think we've all felt a slight contempt for those who moralize over us

That's a generalization I can't agree with.

I agree that when you WANT to do something else, that emotion in you can make you think some stupid things about the person who issues the moral, however, there are genuine examples where the moralizer deserves our respect and appreciation, and not contempt.

Those who provoke contempt are those evangelical christian types who moralize in the manner you describe. Their heart may be in the right place, but their hectoring is thoroughly annoying. I for one will admit that I get very irritated with the Jesus people who interrogate me about what I believe, and when they're told that I don't believe in "jesus", but rather, God, they find it unbelievable, and from their perspective, they must continue hammering in the point of how important it is for me to find salvation.

What's contemptuous - and that might still be too harsh a word - is the completely exoteric nature of their approach. They talk to me as if Im a dummy that needs convincing. They ignore my perspective, they ignore basic facts of human psychology, and when they give their advice, you sense a 'im lesser' insinuation in their tone. In other words, there's a very superficial awareness of the human condition. This is why I always take the existentialist approach towards morality, in the sense that I don't take my perspective as something obvious, but rather, I am approaching an entirely different being with his own set of perceptions, attitudes and instincts; my resistance to offering moral advice along a philosophical nature emanates from this perspective.

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.

There needn't be anything 'tyrannical' is accepting the notion of a supreme being who is omniscient, omnipotent etc.

For example, do you find the law of gravity 'tyrannical'? Of course not. It is what it is and it would be idiotic to attach an idea like 'tyrannical' to it; it's for your over all well being that you respect the law of gravity.

So, lets say, the God of the Bible condemns murder, and theft, and adultery - these are all things which are inimical to the individual and society; in adultery, which is less obvious, whats being condemned if the break in trust and faithfulness that is fostered when one honors the covenant of marriage. Long term, according to this biblical metaphysics, it is worse that society not foster attitudes of faithfulness than to let people go about having their fun, uncontrolled. Just take a look at the divorce rates in our age of over-sexualization, and cumulative consequences on the up and coming generations. When you have parents who arent honorable, who don't strive to live in accord with a supernal idea like faithfulness to your spouse, which attempts to parallel the sympathy and connectivity between the Hidden God and his creation, than you aren't likely to follow the same example.

I will never forget at 15, when my cousin showed me a picture of his dad at a strip club with a strippers breasts in his mouth; he showed me this despite the fact that his parents were married. I felt incredible grief at this image, but what especially perturbed me was his complete lack of shame in this image; he seemed almost proud of his dads bravado and his 'manliness'. To me, on the other hand, I only thought of how angry I'd be at my own father if he ever acted that way. Later on I learned that despite my uncles 'virtues' hes more or less a very bad man; he rips off people who do him services, sometimes in the tens of thousands; and just 5 months ago, to my astonishment, he put his dog down because he 'didnt want him anymore'. This dog was 3 years old! He killed him because he simply didn't like him. And my stupid aunt went along with it. My own cousin described his parents as "evil" for doing that.

I still havent said anything to him because he's an intimidating, mafia-esque guy. But I've told my cousin that what his dad did was reprehensible. What makes it even more upsetting is that they bought another dog to replace the 'bad' dog they killed.

The superior man is the one who has respect for others. Who helps those in need of help. Who is a good neighbor, a lawful but vigilant citizen, loyal and truthful to himself and everyone else.
There's no need for immorality. We don't need to live against each other we need to live for each other.
We can gain many things that way, the opposite is destructive.
So one is superior to the other.