Ways of being immoral

[Arising_uk]

One is immoral if he or she is one or more of the following:

selfish

The person who hoards food for their family from others in times of starvation is immoral?

dishonest

The jewess is hiding upstairs.

cheating

I cheated some drug-dealers to give the money to the homeless.

greedy

I just can't get enough of your love.

criminal

The jewess is hiding upstairs.

tactless

You're fat and overweight and will die of a heart attack if you don't do something about it.

indiscreet

That man beats his wife every night.

rude

You're a fucking nazi.

cruel

No you can't have an xboxone.

corrupt

Okay, pay me and I'll let the jew go.

hypocritical

I smoke but I'm telling you not to as it's bad for you.

phony

Actually I'm and undercover police-officer and you're nicked.

vividly angry

Stop fucking attacking that women or I'll rip your fucking head-off!

yielding readily to temptation which could well be against long-term self-interest.

Life is short.

gullible

How do you teach one not to be this?

lacking in practical wisdom (unnecessarily idiotic)

Such as?

continuously emotionally-miserable

Could just be physiological.

lying

The jewess is upstairs.

always unhappy. ...

Could just be physiological or maybe realistic or maybe just over empathetic to the plight of others.

[The Voice of Time]

What? One is immoral if one's always happen :O

That reminds me of a case in Norway, where some corrupt local government officials tried to hush a local protester (who claimed something unlawful which indeed was unlawful) by claiming he was insane, and then when the hospital doctor couldn't find anything wrong with him, he diagnosed him as "Excessively happy"... as if he were insane when he was just a very mindful and robust individual. (this happened long ago now though, but it's a famous case in medical ethics in Norway)

Not the same thing, but happiness can never be immoral. You might think about something else than happiness, like carefreeness: that you don't take things seriously. You can be both happy and with a sense of responsibility. Nothing wrong about being happy tending to the needs of the world, for instance. Even if the guy in front of you is death sick, you shouldn't be unhappy because of it. You should do what you can and be satisfied with it. The reason most of us can't, is because we're not able to abstract the problem in front of us from state of our world.

The world is in a sense always a happy place, there are just bad influences trying to counter the opportunities for happiness. And if you absorb that statement, you can see that in the face of bad things, your actions can be done with happiness, as you can never be more than you are, the world is simply not always favoring everybody else. And you can do something about that, but being unhappy is not one of them.

[prof]

I cheated some drug-dealers....

I'm rude. I told him:You're a fucking nazi.

You're dead

Rest in peace, Arising. We'll miss you.

[Arising_uk]

You're dead

Rest in peace, Arising. We'll miss you.

But am I immoral?

[prof]

You're dead

But am I immoral?

Figure it out. One who is rude and who is phony is immoral.

An individual can be more true to himself/herself by eliminating these characteristics, and thus increase one's degree of morality.

The idea in Ethics is to aim for high morality. And to devote oneself to reaching that aim. One very effective way to do so is to add value to each situation in which you are involved.

.

[HexHammer]

UK you can't ask prof such questions, because he can't answer them. He can only make morals and ethics on pre teen lvl thus can't give any examples, because he doesn't know how his words can relate to real life, this is also why he will "run in circles" over and over, and essentially say the same things over and over, never evolve his thinking.

Any reasonable intelligent person, would know that one has to consider the situation, and break the codes if the good outweighs the bad, and that is usually when saving other people as that stands higher than being strict morally.

http://youtu.be/erZ2YidTZp4?t=49m6s
Churchill under WWII knew that the Germans would bomb a city, but he couldn't evacuate it in order to save it, as it would reveal that he had broken the German Enigma code, so he had to sacrifice it in order to play ignorant, it was a terrible dilemma, but the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.

[Arising_uk]

Figure it out. One who is rude and who is phony is immoral.

So not as you said an 'or' situation but now a conjunction of those attributes? "I'm a phoney as I'm an undercover police-officer and you're nicked you rapist pig", am I immoral?

An individual can be more true to himself/herself by eliminating these characteristics, and thus increase one's degree of morality.

If there are degrees of immorality where do you draw the line?

The idea in Ethics is to aim for high morality. And to devote oneself to reaching that aim. One very effective way to do so is to add value to each situation in which you are involved.

Upon which scale do you weigh it? In the above have I not added value by being a phony and removing a rapist from harming others? You'd have me as immoral just because expressed my anger.

[prof]

Figure it out. One who is rude and who is phony is immoral.

So not as you said an 'or' situation but now a conjunction of those attributes? "I'm a phoney as I'm an undercover police-officer ...", am I immoral?

An individual can be more true to himself/herself by eliminating these characteristics, and thus increase one's degree of morality.

If there are degrees of immorality where do you draw the line?

The idea in Ethics is to aim for high morality. And to devote oneself to reaching that aim. One very effective way to do so is to add value to each situation in which you are involved.

Upon which scale do you weigh it? In the above have I not added value by being a phony and removing a rapist from harming others? You'd have me as immoral just because expressed my anger.

You raise a number of interesting points. Before I respond to each of them I would request that you read this over, and let the best of it sink in. It confirms a lot of what I wrote in the o.p. of the thread, "What is Morality?" Check this out: http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/arti ... eader-card
Scroll all the way down the page to note what comes after the pictures.

Yes, a phoney is an inauthentic individual. Often they are not even sure of their own identity. At times a plain-clothes cop commits violence or strong-arms an innocent person - and does not identify himself as an officer of the law. This is wrong-doing. Sometimes he is called upon by his "boss" in the organization which he has infiltrated to commit a murder in order to show his loyalty. This indeed is immoral. If one is inauthentic one cannot be moral. ...Hene immoral to some degree.

You ask, "Where do you draw the line?"

Don't draw lines; just aim to be highly moral and ethical. As the Axiom of Ethics says, aim to make things better. Thus you will create, innovate, uplift others, continuously seek to improve yourself ethically, to evolve.

To be a phoney in order to achieve a good end, such as stopping rapists from committing further rapes is to violate the Means-Ends Relationship. The costs may outweigh the benefits. Yes, let's arrest rapists. But identify yourself as to who you actually are. Don't be a pretender. We don't need more phoneys in this world.

Readers may find it helpful to review that relation of means to ends, and how they are to be compatible: See the o.p. in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9375

And I would add value here by recalling something I wrote earlier about the topic of degrees of value in general - for both morality, and its opposite, are values, and thus matters of degree.

Mathematics is a language, like English, that enables us to make sense of things. For discussing values, and ethics, I use English, however – as explained in detail early in M. C. Katz- BASIC ETHICS (2014) - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz - the formula, I > E > S, helps to codify, condense, and make crisp in our minds the relationships among the basic value dimensions: S, E, and I.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that the Universe has ordered these values, and man discovers the order. The ordering is objective; it is a natural phenomenon, like the Law of Gravity, or any other physical law. Robert Hartman, about 52 years ago, after focusing on the topic all his life, made a breakthrough: he discovered this natural, universal order. He did not invent it, he found it. He named it the Hierarchy Of Value, the HOV. It is displayed in that formula.

“The measure of value is universal and objective. It should be noted that the applications of value are subjective.” --- Robert S. Hartman

When human beings value, make judgments, set priorities, they can mess things up. And they do. But it doesn’t matter to the natural law that orders values whether we violate the order, or we align with it. If we violate the HOV we get distress, or we suffer!! If we align ourselves with it, we gain a high quality life [a QL.] It does not matter if you believe there is a Value Law in the Universe or you do not: the fact is that you will be hurt if you violate the order, the HOV. And if you live in alignment with it you will enjoy a quality life!

It is obvious, and plain to see – for those willing to look enough – that violations of the Hierarchy of Vale cause suffering and result in a diminished quality of life.

[Arising_uk]

...
Yes, a phoney is an inauthentic individual. Often they are not even sure of their own identity. At times a plain-clothes cop commits violence or strong-arms an innocent person - and does not identify himself as an officer of the law. This is wrong-doing. Sometimes he is called upon by his "boss" in the organization which he has infiltrated to commit a murder in order to show his loyalty. ...

Really? This happens in America or on your TV screen? As over here he'd be prosecuted for murder.

This indeed is immoral. If one is inauthentic one cannot be moral. ...Hene immoral to some degree.

Hang on? Either not moral or moralish?

You ask, "Where do you draw the line?"

Don't draw lines; just aim to be highly moral and ethical. As the Axiom of Ethics says, aim to make things better. Thus you will create, innovate, uplift others, continuously seek to improve yourself ethically, to evolve.

To be a phoney in order to achieve a good end, such as stopping rapists from committing further rapes is to violate the Means-Ends Relationship. The costs may outweigh the benefits. Yes, let's arrest rapists. But identify yourself as to who you actually are. Don't be a pretender. We don't need more phoneys in this world.

So when chasing down the actual bosses of a sexual trafficking ring you think this policeman should identify themselves to the minions?

Readers may find it helpful to review that relation of means to ends, and how they are to be compatible: See the o.p. in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9375

And I would add value here by recalling something I wrote earlier about the topic of degrees of value in general - for both morality, and its opposite, are values, and thus matters of degree.

Mathematics is a language, like English, that enables us to make sense of things. For discussing values, and ethics, I use English, however – as explained in detail early in M. C. Katz- BASIC ETHICS (2014) - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz - the formula, I > E > S, helps to codify, condense, and make crisp in our minds the relationships among the basic value dimensions: S, E, and I.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that the Universe has ordered these values, and man discovers the order. The ordering is objective; it is a natural phenomenon, like the Law of Gravity, or any other physical law. Robert Hartman, about 52 years ago, after focusing on the topic all his life, made a breakthrough: he discovered this natural, universal order. He did not invent it, he found it. He named it the Hierarchy Of Value, the HOV. It is displayed in that formula.

“The measure of value is universal and objective. It should be noted that the applications of value are subjective.” --- Robert S. Hartman

When human beings value, make judgments, set priorities, they can mess things up. And they do. But it doesn’t matter to the natural law that orders values whether we violate the order, or we align with it. If we violate the HOV we get distress, or we suffer!! If we align ourselves with it, we gain a high quality life [a QL.] It does not matter if you believe there is a Value Law in the Universe or you do not: the fact is that you will be hurt if you violate the order, the HOV. And if you live in alignment with it you will enjoy a quality life!

It is obvious, and plain to see – for those willing to look enough – that violations of the Hierarchy of Vale cause suffering and result in a diminished quality of life.

Just to cut to the chase, you think the policeman in the sexual trafficking case would be moral or not on this scale?

[Lev Muishkin]

One is immoral if he or she is one or more of the following:

selfish
dishonest
cheating
greedy
criminal
tactless
indiscreet
rude
cruel
corrupt
hypocritical
phony
vividly angry
yielding readily to temptation which could well be against long-term self-interest.
gullible
lacking in practical wisdom (unnecessarily idiotic)
continuously emotionally-miserable
lying
always unhappy.

Remember that morality, like any value, is a matter of degree. [A person who is devoted to being ethical will aim for high-morality.] To recall how "morality" is defined in my system, see the thread What is Morality? or re-read it: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10207


To all readers: What other marks of immorality can you add? What outward behavior or conduct might be judged to be "immoral", thus (possibly open to being) shown disapproval (or worse) by individuals of good character?
Bill, if you post an animated graphic here please explain what concept you have in mind.

There is a problem with several of your descriptors.
All of them are reflective. Whilst you might consider a person selfish, another might think that person is being thrifty to preserve his kin.
And a person that is dishonest might be doing so to protect some person from injury. Such as "No there is no Jew hiding in the walls, Herr Fritz."
You can pretty much think of counter arguments for every item on the list.
But there are at least four that ought not to be there at all.
"

These are examples of mental illness, and nothing whatever to do with immorality.
Unless you are a person that thinks mental illness needs to by punished with moral law?

[HexHammer]

There is a problem with several of your descriptors.
All of them are reflective. Whilst you might consider a person selfish, another might think that person is being thrifty to preserve his kin.
And a person that is dishonest might be doing so to protect some person from injury. Such as "No there is no Jew hiding in the walls, Herr Fritz."
You can pretty much think of counter arguments for every item on the list.
But there are at least four that ought not to be there at all.
"

These are examples of mental illness, and nothing whatever to do with immorality.
Unless you are a person that thinks mental illness needs to by punished with moral law?

At last someone who partially understands psychology, but the thing is if you read much of profs scribbles, you'll note that he can't comprehend things of minor complexity, in that perspective he has a mind of a preteen, I assume he have had a major stroke at some point because he can't distinct "good" as in useful/practical good (applied to objects), morally and ethically good (applied to actions).

He will never learn and improve, and things everybody but himself is wrong.

[prof]

In the last, most recent, post we see exhibited an actual example of the theme of this thread.

We see as well the fallacy argumentum ad hominem ...an attack on character.

[prof]

One is immoral if he or she is one or more of the following:

selfish
dishonest
cheating
greedy
criminal
tactless
indiscreet
rude
cruel
corrupt
hypocritical
phony
vividly angry
yielding readily to temptation which could well be against long-term self-interest.
gullible
lacking in practical wisdom (unnecessarily idiotic)
lying
.

Remember that morality, like any value, is a matter of degree. [A person who is devoted to being ethical will aim for high-morality.] To recall how "morality" is defined in my system, see the thread What is Morality? or re-read it: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10207

There is a problem with several of your descriptors.
All of them are reflective. Whilst you might consider a person selfish, another might think that person is being thrifty to preserve his kin.

So are you saying, Lev, that no one is ever selfish. Is your position that they are only "thrifty" when their conduct is inconsiderate of others, when they push themselves into the front of the line, etc.?

And a person that is dishonest might be doing so to protect some person from injury. Such as "No there is no Jew hiding in the walls, Herr Fritz."

In earlier discussions on the topic of honesty {I posted an entire thread on the topic-} the conclusion reached was that we are to be as honest as possible under the circumstances.

You can pretty much think of counter arguments for every item on the list.

In his first post in this thread, on page 1, Voice of Time already did this, to show, as he noted, that one can be argumentative if one wants to be. Then, later on, u.k. arising did the same, offered counter-arguments to each item listed. [I then responded in some detail to each of those critics.] Don't you, my friend, read the earlier posts in a thread before you post yourself!!??

But there are at least four that ought not to be there at all.
" These are examples of mental illness, and nothing whatever to do with immorality.
Unless you are a person that thinks mental illness needs to by punished with moral law?

Since morality [in the new paradigm for Ethics I have offered] is defined as self being true to true Self, immorality is the opposite of that.

My question for you, Lev, is: Do you think that those who are what you call "mentally ill" are being true to their true selves? In other words, are they continually growing morally? Are they evolving into individuals of better character? Remember that one prerequisite of morality is: continuous self-improvement. You recall that from the previous discussions of the nature of morality, don't you? {You even quote the link to one of them - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10207 - you studied the content of the o.p. there at that link, I trust.}

You write: "...Unless you are a person that thinks mental illness needs to by punished with moral law?"
I do not think mental illness or anything else "needs to be punished by moral law." I have no idea where you got that notion???? ...certainly not in any of my writings. Are you acquainted with them?

[Lev Muishkin]

One is immoral if he or she is one or more of the following:

selfish
dishonest
cheating
greedy
criminal
tactless
indiscreet
rude
cruel
corrupt
hypocritical
phony
vividly angry
yielding readily to temptation which could well be against long-term self-interest.
gullible
lacking in practical wisdom (unnecessarily idiotic)
lying
.

Remember that morality, like any value, is a matter of degree. [A person who is devoted to being ethical will aim for high-morality.] To recall how "morality" is defined in my system, see the thread What is Morality? or re-read it: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10207

There is a problem with several of your descriptors.
All of them are reflective. Whilst you might consider a person selfish, another might think that person is being thrifty to preserve his kin.

So are you saying, Lev, that no one is ever selfish. Is your position that they are only "thrifty" when their conduct is inconsiderate of others, when they push themselves into the front of the line, etc.?
No I said exactly what I wanted to say. I am saying that person x considers person y selfish , whilst person x finds him thrifty.

And a person that is dishonest might be doing so to protect some person from injury. Such as "No there is no Jew hiding in the walls, Herr Fritz."

In earlier discussions on the topic of honesty {I posted an entire thread on the topic-} the conclusion reached was that we are to be as honest as possible under the circumstances.
Which completely invalidates your OP on THIS thread. What you have tried to replace a moral certainty with an empty platitude. We all endeavour to be as honest as possible whilst behaving as we like.

You can pretty much think of counter arguments for every item on the list.

In his first post in this thread, on page 1, Voice of Time already did this, to show, as he noted, that one can be argumentative if one wants to be. Then, later on, u.k. arising did the same, offered counter-arguments to each item listed. [I then responded in some detail to each of those critics.] Don't you, my friend, read the earlier posts in a thread before you post yourself!!??
No. I try not to make it about personalities. I did subsequently read his thread, though. I noted that he tore your post to pieces, on each and every point. You should take that on board.

But there are at least four that ought not to be there at all.
" These are examples of mental illness, and nothing whatever to do with immorality.
Unless you are a person that thinks mental illness needs to by punished with moral law?

Since morality [in the new paradigm for Ethics I have offered] is defined as self being true to true Self, immorality is the opposite of that.
Ridiculous. People you consider immoral are equally as true to their selves and anyone else. Psychopaths who fulfil their nature by mass murders more so than others.

My question for you, Lev, is: Do you think that those who are what you call "mentally ill" are being true to their true selves?

We are all true to ourselves. The phrase is almost completely meaningless.

In other words, are they continually growing morally? Are they evolving into individuals of better character? Remember that one prerequisite of morality is: continuous self-improvement. You recall that from the previous discussions of the nature of morality, don't you?

I think you are living in a strange wold of your own making. Personal growth, wisdom and understanding leads to enlightenment, where we shrug off the rules and proscriptions of childhood and realist that moral rules are a negotiation between your needs and the demands of society. Growth is learning to make your own way and put away childish things; such as moral objectivity.

You write: "...Unless you are a person that thinks mental illness needs to by punished with moral law?"
I do not think mental illness or anything else "needs to be punished by moral law." I have no idea where you got that notion???? ...certainly not in any of my writings. Are you acquainted with them?

I got that notion from reading your silly list.
For christsake, you think being gullible is immoral. That makes you immoral. grats.

[prof]

For those who like examples you have just witnessed another example of the theme of this thread in the recent remarks. A way to be immoral is to initiate a perception gap; to do this put someone down, using the word "you" in the accusation. That will do it every time.... And then, in contrast, the ethical life, the life of quality, the life of harmonious human relations will look very attractive to observers - and perhaps even to the one committing immoral acts. Even s/he might prefer some peace and serenity.

Since the default condition of humanity is goodness, and since this is recognized by The Axiom of Ethics, a simple imperative is implied:

Do good

To say it another way, Create value!!

Then enjoy how it feels! Be thankful for the opportunity. Sharing, cooperating, building, creating ...that's the good life, the life of high morality, eudemonia.

.