Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Jor-el

Immorality... Crossing the line.

967 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I would like to know what you consider to be immoral behaviour or principles.

Specifically give us the name of a behaviour or principle you consider to be immoral in nature and a brief explanation of why.

The idea is to create a list of the types of immorality that is most universally accepted as such by modern society.

You are free to agree or disagree with what someone believes to be immoral and listing the ten commandments is a cop out.

In my case there is something that I have lately found to be extremely immoral in nature but I find society accepting this as if it were perfectly normal or natural. A mere consequence of the "global community".

I was taught as I grew up that hard work pays off and if we are loyal we will be appreciated and recognized according to the efforts we put into something, well that might have once been true, not anymore.

Greed...

It is immoral because it has turned us into mere numbers where people don't matter anymore just the bottom line.

In world where we are not human beings anymore, we are just another resource to be exploited.

So what do you consider to be immoral?

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that moralities are learned cultural constructs, my first one would be,  "Do no harm to self or any other self aware being, by any action you take"

And my second would be " Let no harm befall yourself or  another person, if it is in your power to prevent it "

So the ultimate immorality, for me, is doing things which hurt yourself or others, and not preventing things which might harm yourself or others. 

The significance is in intent and practicality.   We can only act with a positive intent and we can only personally do what we can practically do. This may include doing some harm to prevent a greater harm. or restricting some freedoms to protect a greater freedom

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a leech to society, those that let someone else provide for them without so much as a thought of providing back.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Like most things immorality is subjective.  Stealing can be considered immoral but if you're stealing food to feed your starving family then the line begins to blur and we have some gray areas.  As Mr. Walker stated intent is key to labeling what is immoral.  Some cultures feel there is no justification for thievery and chop off limbs as punishment.  It just depends on the ideology or laws in place where the "crime" took place.  

Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion to me is immoral.  Others feel that sexual orientation outside the parameters set by religion is immoral.  I think it's o.k. to feel that way.  It's your religion after all.  BUT discrimination stemming from that belief is immoral and doesn't belong in modern society.  

Edited by Totah Dine
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Morality is 100% subjective, and I do not believe in absolute or universal morals. My morality is different from your morality which is different from your neighbour's morality. Those within a single culture tend to share moral foundations, but that isn't always true. As such, anything I post is based on my own sense of morality, and nobody else's. Unless they agree with my morality, anyway.

 

Immorality, to me, includes unprovoked violence against others. I believe that it is immortal to assault someone else unless your life or well-being is in danger. All forms of discrimination are immoral. Hate speech is immoral. Any sort of class-based privilege is immoral. Destruction or pollution of the natural world in a way that can be easily avoided is immoral. Exposing children to religion is immoral. Stealing that which is owned by another is immoral. Deliberately lying to someone is immoral. Murder is immoral.

 

The subjectivity is strong with this topic.

Edited by Podo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, Jor-el said:

I would like to know what you consider to be immoral behaviour or principles.

Specifically give us the name of a behaviour or principle you consider to be immoral in nature and a brief explanation of why.

The idea is to create a list of the types of immorality that is most universally accepted as such by modern society.

You are free to agree or disagree with what someone believes to be immoral and listing the ten commandments is a cop out.

In my case there is something that I have lately found to be extremely immoral in nature but I find society accepting this as if it were perfectly normal or natural. A mere consequence of the "global community".

I was taught as I grew up that hard work pays off and if we are loyal we will be appreciated and recognized according to the efforts we put into something, well that might have once been true, not anymore.

Greed...

It is immoral because it has turned us into mere numbers where people don't matter anymore just the bottom line.

In world where we are not human beings anymore, we are just another resource to be exploited.

So what do you consider to be immoral?

To get someone at work you need to work hard, perform, avoid negative office politics and engage in positive office politics. If you make the mistake of playing negative office politics you will damage your own reputation. And if you somehow manage to pull the wool over the senior managements eyes you wont perform because everyone below you will resent you. You can blame them, claim people are picking on you, but after a few months of not performing the business will get rid of you as it will be obvious that you're the problem.

Morality is showing respect for others, for social norms, and the laws of society. If you dont, you keep encountering negative consequences as a result. The people that never learn are the people who can never even entertain the idea that they are the problem. And the worst of them end up in prison for the rest of their lives still blaming everybody and everything except themselves.

I'll let you into a little secret. With the exception of small and toxic businesses most firms have qualified management professionals in the hierarchy. They have psychology training and it allows them to examine the personality types of those working under them.  They can spot the people who are a disaster a mile off and those who will make good managers. Altruism, looking after people, doing the right thing, interpersonal skills, keeping themselves separate from negative colleagues and their politics, helping others get ahead, team working, working hard, performing, and taking on extra responsibilities or projects, are the things they look for.

With Old Testament mysticism there are four types of people in the world which are

1. Receivers - The self absorbed people only interested in themselves. Their lives are disasters.

2. Givers - The doormats who spend their days trying to please and be friendly towards everyone else. Their lives are disasters (as the receivers turn them into food sources) although not as bad as the receivers.

3. Those who give in order to receive - Whenever they do something for another its because they expect something back in return. Their lives are okay.

4. Those who receive in order to give - These people get the further than any of the others in life. They are the moral, strong and wise ones.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

To get someone at work you need to work hard, perform, avoid negative office politics and engage in positive office politics. If you make the mistake of playing negative office politics you will damage your own reputation. And if you somehow manage to pull the wool over the senior managements eyes you wont perform because everyone below you will resent you. You can blame them, claim people are picking on you, but after a few months of not performing the business will get rid of you as it will be obvious that you're the problem.

Morality is showing respect for others, for social norms, and the laws of society. If you dont, you keep encountering negative consequences as a result. The people that never learn are the people who can never even entertain the idea that they are the problem. And the worst of them end up in prison for the rest of their lives still blaming everybody and everything except themselves.

I'll let you into a little secret. With the exception of small and toxic businesses most firms have qualified management professionals in the hierarchy. They have psychology training and it allows them to examine the personality types of those working under them.  They can spot the people who are a disaster a mile off and those who will make good managers. Altruism, looking after people, doing the right thing, interpersonal skills, keeping themselves separate from negative colleagues and their politics, helping others get ahead, team working, working hard, performing, and taking on extra responsibilities or projects, are the things they look for.

With Old Testament mysticism there are four types of people in the world which are

1. Receivers - The self absorbed people only interested in themselves. Their lives are disasters.

2. Givers - The doormats who spend their days trying to please and be friendly towards everyone else. Their lives are disasters (as the receivers turn them into food sources) although not as bad as the receivers.

3. Those who give in order to receive - Whenever they do something for another its because they expect something back in return. Their lives are okay.

4. Those who receive in order to give - These people get the further than any of the others in life. They are the moral, strong and wise ones.

Interesting  and some good points, although personally i  also disagree with some of it. 

In my experience, the  more you give, the more is given back to you. This applies to everything from money to love.  It is impossible to give away everything, and not to, then, be given back more than you ever gave away. 

 if you are giving from your own values and motivations you CANNOT become a doormat for others YOU are in command and control of your behaviours not anyone else.  Only if you give in the hope of getting something back are you placed at the mercy of others.

I've been a giver all my life and far from  being a disaster this has sealed my place as a loved and respected member of family, community, work, and neighbourhood.

This may work better for me because i live in a relatively small town and have lived in this area for about 53 of my 66 years.  But,  because of my reputation,  I am treated with honour dignity and  respect, and allowed credit   when i need it or given help if we need it.   We lost everything in a major bushfire We were given nearly 30000 dollars by people. We were offered several homes  and we were provided with free clothing food and all the things needed to restart our lives.  Because we were fully insured i didnt  want to accept a lot of this, but it became clear i had to, or i would hurt and offend hundreds of people who WANTED to give us something .

Your last point is valid The more i give the more i receive, and thus the more i am able to give, but i see it the other way round.  I don't receive in order to give    I just give and this causes me to receive.

I would keep giving even if i stopped receiving.   I intend to die just having  just given away the last cent i own, and the last asset i possess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Interesting  and some good points, although personally i  also disagree with some of it. 

In my experience, the  more you give, the more is given back to you. This applies to everything from money to love.  It is impossible to give away everything, and not to, then, be given back more than you ever gave away. 

 if you are giving from your own values and motivations you CANNOT become a doormat for others YOU are in command and control of your behaviours not anyone else.  Only if you give in the hope of getting something back are you placed at the mercy of others.

I've been a giver all my life and far from  being a disaster this has sealed my place as a loved and respected member of family, community, work, and neighbourhood.

This may work better for me because i live in a relatively small town and have lived in this area for about 53 of my 66 years.  But,  because of my reputation,  I am treated with honour dignity and  respect, and allowed credit   when i need it or given help if we need it.   We lost everything in a major bushfire We were given nearly 30000 dollars by people. We were offered several homes  and we were provided with free clothing food and all the things needed to restart our lives.  Because we were fully insured i didnt  want to accept a lot of this, but it became clear i had to, or i would hurt and offend hundreds of people who WANTED to give us something .

Your last point is valid The more i give the more i receive, and thus the more i am able to give, but i see it the other way round.  I don't receive in order to give    I just give and this causes me to receive.

I would keep giving even if i stopped receiving.   I intend to die just having  just given away the last cent i own, and the last asset i possess. 

I had a look back over it and I got the order slightly wrong - receivers, giving to receive, giving, receiving to give.

While giving is portrayed as the highest level of morality in a variety of cultures there are receivers who see you as a source to be taken advantage off. Givers attract them.

The highest level of morality is receiving to give. As receivers (the worst kind of person) only take, you repel them. You are only able to maintain relationships with those who give or those who receive to give. And hence you end up only with decent relationships.

And taking the mysticism further with receiving to give you need to put yourself into the state of mind where you receive life's pleasures, and enjoy them, not for your sake but to give God back a sense of joy. Because God gets its jollies when you receive the jollies it sends your way, when you enjoy them, and you choose to enjoy them to give God its jollies.

Thats Old Testament Mysticism. It basically says when you get stuck in the 3 levels below it then they become the source of the problems in your life. God is basically angry at you for not receiving to give back to it.

Edited by RabidMongoose
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎-‎04‎-‎2017 at 1:54 AM, Mr Walker said:

Given that moralities are learned cultural constructs, my first one would be,  "Do no harm to self or any other self aware being, by any action you take"

And my second would be " Let no harm befall yourself or  another person, if it is in your power to prevent it "

So the ultimate immorality, for me, is doing things which hurt yourself or others, and not preventing things which might harm yourself or others. 

The significance is in intent and practicality.   We can only act with a positive intent and we can only personally do what we can practically do. This may include doing some harm to prevent a greater harm. or restricting some freedoms to protect a greater freedom

Yes morality is a learned construct but I am asking what you consider to be immoral according to your particular moral views.

The one thing that would you put at number one above all others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎-‎04‎-‎2017 at 2:03 AM, NightScreams said:

Being a leech to society, those that let someone else provide for them without so much as a thought of providing back.

A good one, I think.

This person would then be a user of others, who lives because of other peoples hard work. In the old days, they would be cast out of a society to live or die alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎-‎04‎-‎2017 at 4:05 AM, Totah Dine said:

Like most things immorality is subjective.  Stealing can be considered immoral but if you're stealing food to feed your starving family then the line begins to blur and we have some gray areas.  As Mr. Walker stated intent is key to labeling what is immoral.  Some cultures feel there is no justification for thievery and chop off limbs as punishment.  It just depends on the ideology or laws in place where the "crime" took place.  

Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion to me is immoral.  Others feel that sexual orientation outside the parameters set by religion is immoral.  I think it's o.k. to feel that way.  It's your religion after all.  BUT discrimination stemming from that belief is immoral and doesn't belong in modern society.  

Yes it is subjective but not as much as you may think, especially in todays global civilization.

Discrimination is one of those common immoral concepts that has become fairly widespread for example. I don't think there is a single person who would accept it as moral, especially if they are the ones on the receiving end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎-‎04‎-‎2017 at 6:25 PM, Podo said:

Morality is 100% subjective, and I do not believe in absolute or universal morals. My morality is different from your morality which is different from your neighbour's morality. Those within a single culture tend to share moral foundations, but that isn't always true. As such, anything I post is based on my own sense of morality, and nobody else's. Unless they agree with my morality, anyway.

 

Immorality, to me, includes unprovoked violence against others. I believe that it is immortal to assault someone else unless your life or well-being is in danger. All forms of discrimination are immoral. Hate speech is immoral. Any sort of class-based privilege is immoral. Destruction or pollution of the natural world in a way that can be easily avoided is immoral. Exposing children to religion is immoral. Stealing that which is owned by another is immoral. Deliberately lying to someone is immoral. Murder is immoral.

 

The subjectivity is strong with this topic.

Again, yes it is perfectly subjective but, not to the point where for example, murder is considered anywhere to be perfectly acceptable, don't you think?

So yes, I think that there are indeed some points that can be considered universal morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎-‎04‎-‎2017 at 7:12 PM, RabidMongoose said:

To get someone at work you need to work hard, perform, avoid negative office politics and engage in positive office politics. If you make the mistake of playing negative office politics you will damage your own reputation. And if you somehow manage to pull the wool over the senior managements eyes you wont perform because everyone below you will resent you. You can blame them, claim people are picking on you, but after a few months of not performing the business will get rid of you as it will be obvious that you're the problem.

Morality is showing respect for others, for social norms, and the laws of society. If you dont, you keep encountering negative consequences as a result. The people that never learn are the people who can never even entertain the idea that they are the problem. And the worst of them end up in prison for the rest of their lives still blaming everybody and everything except themselves.

I'll let you into a little secret. With the exception of small and toxic businesses most firms have qualified management professionals in the hierarchy. They have psychology training and it allows them to examine the personality types of those working under them.  They can spot the people who are a disaster a mile off and those who will make good managers. Altruism, looking after people, doing the right thing, interpersonal skills, keeping themselves separate from negative colleagues and their politics, helping others get ahead, team working, working hard, performing, and taking on extra responsibilities or projects, are the things they look for.

With Old Testament mysticism there are four types of people in the world which are

1. Receivers - The self absorbed people only interested in themselves. Their lives are disasters.

2. Givers - The doormats who spend their days trying to please and be friendly towards everyone else. Their lives are disasters (as the receivers turn them into food sources) although not as bad as the receivers.

3. Those who give in order to receive - Whenever they do something for another its because they expect something back in return. Their lives are okay.

4. Those who receive in order to give - These people get the further than any of the others in life. They are the moral, strong and wise ones.

Thank you for the post, it is an interesting and innovative way of looking at things, one which I never considered ( not the 1st part which most professionals are aware of but unfortunately, even with all the information available, some bad apples get through and even become your superiors). The last part was very interesting indeed.

Yet, this is not what I was commenting on, the point I was trying to make is that society has accepted greed as a perfectly justifiable position to have and has thus allowed itself to become subject to people who will do anything to get what they want, even if its subjecting others to low income and increased workloads.

Richard Branson is one of the 1st people to speak out against these types of businesses which are predominant over the rest.

hqdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember, the whole point is to give your view of the very worst immoral behavior or action you consider to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no "very worst immoral behavior".  I cannot say this or that behavior is moral or immoral - by what standard of measure does one compare behavior to to determine whether it's moral or immoral?  As well as the degree of morality or immorality?

Edited by Aftermath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue 'morals' are a human construct as good and evil don't exist in objective reality. Most mammals don't follow a strictly adhered to ethical system... it's just our emotional and cognitive intelligence has allowed us slightly more evolved apes to embed them into our society for a greater harmony and co-existence. Our 'morals' depend on our cultural and religious backgrounds, as I've witnessed first-hand travelling many countries in my gap year of studying. Some societies, IMO, lack any compassion and empathy in the most basic of definitions... just look at the way they treat animals, women and homosexuals.

For me personally, I agree with your 'greed' declaration as unfettered greed leaves the economy, finance, healthcare, policy etc... in the hands of the elite. Sure, people should be allowed to get rich and provide for their families; however, the poor also deserve to be treated as human beings and granted a dignifying existence, whether that be with providing the equal education to everyone, no matter their social status (posh kids mixing with working class kids might be shocking at first, though.) The world is clearly unbalanced, and we humans are a cancer to the Earth's resources and are causing climate change without a care in the world. Something must be done to curb our innate greed and destructive tendencies, but what that something is, is anybody's guess. Heck, fixing the problem may turn out to be 'immoral' in which case, maybe we can't ethically solve the issue of greed without causing more suffering in the long run. Catch-22 situation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Jor-el said:

Thank you for the post, it is an interesting and innovative way of looking at things, one which I never considered ( not the 1st part which most professionals are aware of but unfortunately, even with all the information available, some bad apples get through and even become your superiors). The last part was very interesting indeed.

Yet, this is not what I was commenting on, the point I was trying to make is that society has accepted greed as a perfectly justifiable position to have and has thus allowed itself to become subject to people who will do anything to get what they want, even if its subjecting others to low income and increased workloads.

Richard Branson is one of the 1st people to speak out against these types of businesses which are predominant over the rest.

hqdefault.jpg

Human nature is what it is. If your approach to life is to lie, cheat and manipulate then what happens when you get caught out? Not even the highest functioning sociopaths can keep it together in the long-term. What do they do then? Move to a new town, invent a new history for themselves, and try to con a whole new batch of people? Until they get exposed again.

Society (and reality) are not setup to favour the corrupt, greedy or immoral. The more people you do over the more of them that exist looking for justice and their revenge. Its a numbers game before you get a negative comeback.

Yes, there are poorly run businesses. How many of them are here today and gone tomorrow? How many of them go bust because they have a high turnover of staff who have quit in disgust at the way the firm does business and how they are treated? You think a business can sustain itself in the long-term like that? They cannot. Companies run properly attract and keep talent giving them a huge chance of becoming major corporations (if the market wants their products and services). They dont get their reputations damaged by employment tribunerals, raided by police, shut down by trading standards go bust from alienating customers, or get summoned to a Parliamentary hearing.

The key to avoid the above is one question during a job interview - 'Most businesses keep their staff 2-4 years. Is it the same here?'

If the answer is yes or better, then take the job. If its worse you wont even get offered it and they will likely go weird in the interview too. And check the firm out on review sites. 1 in 10 unhappy customers is nothing to be concerned at but when the majority say avoid then you know there are problems going on.

Edited by RabidMongoose
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more advice.

You have weak people in life who dont want to be targeted so they cave in and follow the immoral person. They get used to target (and thus mob) people that have it within themselves to expose the immoral person. Basically, the immoral person is using his/her new found minions to construct a wall of silence behind which to hide what they really are. One where you get persecuted by the mob if you dont fall into place. And keeping it in place is the only way the immoral person can rise to the top.

The vast majority fail because not everyone is weak. Many people have a backbone. Many people dont care if the group is targeting them, they will expose the behaviour for what it really is. And the higher the sociopath climbs the more cards holding up that fake playing card house. All it takes is one to fall out of place.....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

There is no "very worst immoral behavior".  I cannot say this or that behavior is moral or immoral - by what standard of measure does one compare behavior to to determine whether it's moral or immoral?  As well as the degree of morality or immorality?

By your own standards of course.... that is what this thread asked of those who want to participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2017 at 6:28 PM, Jor-el said:

I would like to know what you consider to be immoral behaviour or principles.

Specifically give us the name of a behaviour or principle you consider to be immoral in nature and a brief explanation of why.

The idea is to create a list of the types of immorality that is most universally accepted as such by modern society.

You are free to agree or disagree with what someone believes to be immoral and listing the ten commandments is a cop out.

In my case there is something that I have lately found to be extremely immoral in nature but I find society accepting this as if it were perfectly normal or natural. A mere consequence of the "global community".

I was taught as I grew up that hard work pays off and if we are loyal we will be appreciated and recognized according to the efforts we put into something, well that might have once been true, not anymore.

Greed...

It is immoral because it has turned us into mere numbers where people don't matter anymore just the bottom line.

In world where we are not human beings anymore, we are just another resource to be exploited.

So what do you consider to be immoral?

Man, it seems to me, you have a doom and gloom of mankind. Do you really see the majority of the world's population as selfish exploiters? They are there, but I think there also a lot of people who are selfless and giving. I have told you in another thread, I have plenty of very giving people. I think it is half/half of each. 

What do I consider of immoral behavior and what's the worse of it? Well, as you know, growing up secular, I have a hard time considering the actuality of immoral behavior, sin, and such. It just seems so connected to a various religion. And since we are talking about the world over, I would probably translate that as unethical behavior. They do have the same meaning, right?

So, unethical behavior like murdering, stealing, fraud, greed, yeah, the things I think you're mentioning. And like I think Rabid mongoose is saying, it's many levels. And it's how you are, that might not identify you moral/immoral, or ethical/unethical. To some, you have to resort to certain behaviors to keep yourself going in this world. I would consider murder within the unethical and as the worst thing. And even that gets complicated, for if you killed someone to defend yourself and/or others, you still killed someone despite if it's labeled differently. 

I think it all boils down to how selfish/selfless one is and how that domino effect does damage/does good. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jor-el said:

By your own standards of course.... that is what this thread asked of those who want to participate.

Alright then...  in that case, there is no immoral behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Again, yes it is perfectly subjective but, not to the point where for example, murder is considered anywhere to be perfectly acceptable, don't you think?

So yes, I think that there are indeed some points that can be considered universal morals.

Yes and no. Most cultures say that murder is wrong, but the definition of murder is extremely variable. In Saudi Arabia it isn't murder to force your wife and daughter to drink acid until they die, if this action is done to preserve your family's honour. In America, it is not considered murder to execute a criminal in many states. In Canada, it is not considered murder for a doctor to administer assisted suicide. Each of these examples would be considered murder in many other places in the world, but are not considered murder in others.

Conclusion: nobody likes murder, but everyone defines it so differently that it can't be considered a universal moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aftermath said:

Alright then...  in that case, there is no immoral behavior.

So if your family were victimized then it wouldn't be immoral, merely illegal.

The thing is that people have double standards here in my experience. When it is anybody we have no relationship with, then it is easily said that there is no immoral behaviour, when it hits close to home, things become quite different in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Podo said:

Yes and no. Most cultures say that murder is wrong, but the definition of murder is extremely variable. In Saudi Arabia it isn't murder to force your wife and daughter to drink acid until they die, if this action is done to preserve your family's honour. In America, it is not considered murder to execute a criminal in many states. In Canada, it is not considered murder for a doctor to administer assisted suicide. Each of these examples would be considered murder in many other places in the world, but are not considered murder in others.

Conclusion: nobody likes murder, but everyone defines it so differently that it can't be considered a universal moral.

Murder is the taking of a life outside of self-defense.

That includes accidental murder due to negligence or some other distraction

Any action that results in the death of a human being outside of self defense is murder.

Even a failure of a mechanical component that causes death can be murder.

The one thing I find amusing in the many cultures we have are the excuses that are created to call it something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Man, it seems to me, you have a doom and gloom of mankind. Do you really see the majority of the world's population as selfish exploiters? They are there, but I think there also a lot of people who are selfless and giving. I have told you in another thread, I have plenty of very giving people. I think it is half/half of each. 

What do I consider of immoral behavior and what's the worse of it? Well, as you know, growing up secular, I have a hard time considering the actuality of immoral behavior, sin, and such. It just seems so connected to a various religion. And since we are talking about the world over, I would probably translate that as unethical behavior. They do have the same meaning, right?

So, unethical behavior like murdering, stealing, fraud, greed, yeah, the things I think you're mentioning. And like I think Rabid mongoose is saying, it's many levels. And it's how you are, that might not identify you moral/immoral, or ethical/unethical. To some, you have to resort to certain behaviors to keep yourself going in this world. I would consider murder within the unethical and as the worst thing. And even that gets complicated, for if you killed someone to defend yourself and/or others, you still killed someone despite if it's labeled differently. 

I think it all boils down to how selfish/selfless one is and how that domino effect does damage/does good. 

 

I would think it self evident about mankind  if one doesn't limit ones views by life in the USA.

The world is an ugly place even as there is natural beauty to behold.

From what I've experienced of the world it doesn't leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling....

Let me ask you a question...

Have you ever seen a real human slave with your own eyes before?

I bet the answer is no.... Well I have. It wasn't pretty and it was illegal in the country in question, yet the authorities tacitly allow it to happen consistently in many parts of the world.

Since you are here, there is an interesting post you should read in this thread regarding empathy... Please see Athiest Pope's post #16.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/306163-immorality-crossing-the-line/?do=findComment&comment=6108961

 

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.