The Impact Of Immorality

[007]

The Impact Of Immorality​

by Philip Atkinson


All understanding is built upon morality, a set of values against which reason interprets events, and this morality is an essential and physical part of every adult human. It is formed by the experiences of upbringing during the first seven years of infancy, and the resulting personality created by this Understanding may be separated into two distinct types:


Selfish those whose code of morality places them self ahead of all other considerations, so their behavior is controlled only by convenience (Immoral).
Unselfish those who revere a code of morality ahead of themselves, which controls their behaviour (Moral).

The Selfish, or Immoral
The selfish, or immoral, person is someone who has been taught to prize themselves above everything, hence they: 1. Do not respect others—not their lives, property, rights, freedoms, nor opinions. They only respect themselves, their own feelings, opinions, rights and freedoms.
2. Dissipate Wealth—by placing all their efforts into indulging their impulses while avoiding the demands of others, they can only exhaust, and not accumulate, wealth
3. Are Tyrannical—being a slave to their own emotions means they demand everyone else becomes the same slave.
4. Are irresolute— at the mercy of the vagaries of their feelings they have lost the military spirit and are whimsical, disloyal and cowardly.
5. Are irrational—unrestrained by any morality except that of convenience, they are unable to resist the demands of their impulses, so their reason becomes a slave of their feelings, which corrupts their understanding.
6 Win Misery despite indulging their urges they find only unhappiness.


Unselfish, or Moral
Adopting any set of values that prize something other than private indulgence, allows an individual to: 1. Respect Others—the adopted values dictate that self is subordinate to the community, so the general welfare of others is more important than private welfare.
2. Create Wealth— the energy supplied by physical appetites is changed into lasting achievements rather than fleeting moments of pleasure. A moral man may build a fence instead of pursuing sexual gratification; a moral woman may repair her children's clothes instead of seeking the attentions of the opposite sex.
3. Be Rational— by suppressing the whimsical demands of emotions the individual can form can form a stable sensible understanding, which allows the notions of justice and duty.
4 Win Happiness—citizens can find fulfillment by upholding justice and performing their duty. Able to pursue worthwhile and rewarding tasks in the ordered community allowed by the adoption of an unselfish morality. Secure in the knowledge that their efforts are enriching the thing they cherish most, their community, which will survive beyond their own life-span.


Summary
A moral individual improves their world by creating riches perceived by a clear understanding and won through self-sacrifice, an immoral (selfish) individual achieves the opposite; they consume wealth by sacrificing all around them on the altar of their private desires while hiding this fact by lying.

The moral make their community richer and cleverer, while the immoral generate poverty and delusion.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral/moral5.htm

 

[007]

I like posting articles like these. I'm always amazed at how deafly silent the liberals are when I do. They don't have anything to say all of a sudden. It's like they've just been hit between the eyes with a brick. A "TRUTH" brick.

 

[liberalogic]

A "truth brick?" lol

It's a great article and I agree with a lot of it.

 

[MissileMan]

I like posting articles like these. I'm always amazed at how deafly silent the liberals are when I do. They don't have anything to say all of a sudden. It's like they've just been hit between the eyes with a brick. A "TRUTH" brick.

The liberals are laughing too hard to operate a keyboard. Where do you get this crap from anyways? Is it possibly http://www.moralsexplainedbyanidiot.com ? It sounds more like a communistic manifesto than anything else. Call someone immoral because they spend the money they earn rather than hoard it? Was this supposed to be posted in the humor section? It should be...it's a joke.

 

[007]

The liberals are laughing too hard to operate a keyboard. Where do you get this crap from anyways? Is it possibly http://www.moralsexplainedbyanidiot.com ? It sounds more like a communistic manifesto than anything else. Call someone immoral because they spend the money they earn rather than hoard it? Was this supposed to be posted in the humor section? It should be...it's a joke.

You're pretty thick in the skull MM. I don't expect much of anything to penetrate that dense liberal fog you live in.

Laugh on... I am... at you.

 

[MissileMan]

You're pretty thick in the skull MM. I don't expect much of anything to penetrate that dense liberal fog you live in.

Laugh on... I am... at you.

Wasn't it you who was in here bragging about buying a new Harley? Guess that makes you immoral because you spent some cash instead of socking it away. And, you bought it for selfish reasons, so that makes you even more immoral. :wank:

As much as you like to engage in it, don't be shocked when someone points out that one of your posts is shit!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wasn't it you who was in here bragging about buying a new Harley? Guess that makes you immoral because you spent some cash instead of socking it away. And, you bought it for selfish reasons, so that makes you even more immoral. :wank:

As much as you like to engage in it, don't be shocked when someone points out that one of your posts is shit!

So utterly pathetic. You can have a motorcycle if you don't mug someone to get it. This is what you libs do, you focus on what people have to determine their character. It's so simplistic and devoid of moral content. You recognize which camp your socialist outlook falls into, so you reject morality, or pervert it to simplistic envy-based dialectical materialism: property relations rule all, character doesn't matter, there is no free will.

 

[MissileMan]

So utterly pathetic. You can have a motorcycle if you don't mug someone to get it. This is what you libs do, you focus on what people have to determine their character. It's so simplistic and devoid of moral content. You recognize which camp your socialist outlook falls into, so you reject morality, or pervert it to simplistic envy-based dialectical materialism: property relations rule all, character doesn't matter, there is no free will.

You extremists just hate it when someone uses your own words against you. I was using the criteria set forth in the very article that PR himself purports can be used to guage morality.

What I recognized was the fallacy of at least a part of his article. It stated in very clear, simple language that :

The selfish, or immoral, person is someone who...by placing all their efforts into indulging their impulses while avoiding the demands of others, they can only exhaust, and not accumulate, wealth

This purely idiotic allegation makes no mention of stealing

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You extremists just hate it when someone uses your own words against you. I was using the criteria set forth in the very article that PR himself purports can be used to guage morality.

What I recognized was the fallacy of at least a part of his article. It stated in very clear, simple language that :

This purely idiotic allegation makes no mention of stealing

that's what income redistribution vis a vis socialism is.

 

[007]

Wasn't it you who was in here bragging about buying a new Harley? Guess that makes you immoral because you spent some cash instead of socking it away. And, you bought it for selfish reasons, so that makes you even more immoral. :wank:

As much as you like to engage in it, don't be shocked when someone points out that one of your posts is shit!

The post is only shit to you! Because it points out very well what you stinking liberals think. The truth hurts. The truth of this post hurts you just like the queer in the other thread, the truth hurts him too.

And true to liberal form MM, you just waltz in here and declare the article is shit without any contrary debate that's worth a hill of salt. Very nice.

Get a life.

 

[MissileMan]

The post is only shit to you! Because it points out very well what you stinking liberals think. The truth hurts. The truth of this post hurts you just like the queer in the other thread, the truth hurts him too.

And true to liberal form MM, you just waltz in here and declare the article is shit without any contrary debate that's worth a hill of salt. Very nice.

Get a life.

In keeping with your extremist M.O., you glimpsed at an article that read "immoral, bad; moral, good" and slung it in here without really checking what it said first.

If you can offer a rational reason why spending your money instead of accumulating a stash is immoral, have at it.

 

[MissileMan]

that's what income redistribution vis a vis socialism is.

I agree, but the article is saying that socialism is moral.

 

[Abbey Normal]

2. Dissipate Wealth—by placing all their efforts into indulging their impulses while avoiding the demands of others, they can only exhaust, and not accumulate, wealth

This is clearly not saying that spending any money on yourself is bad. It is stating that it is immoral to always indulge yourself, and continually avoid the needs of others. And just because it uses terms like "Dissipating Wealth" does not mean it is advocating Socialism, either. I see it as advocating taking responsibity for others in your life, and beyond that, giving to charity.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree, but the article is saying that socialism is moral.

Liberal policy allows and rewards the lifestye of self glorification, of diregard for consequences.

Implementing insane kyoto accords despite their devastation to the economy is utterly anti-human, as well.

 

[MissileMan]

This is clearly not saying that spending any money on yourself is bad. It is stating that it is immoral to always indulge yourself, and continually avoid the needs of others. And just because it uses terms like "Dissipating Wealth" does not mean it is advocating Socialism, either. I see it as advocating taking responsibity for others in your life, and beyond that, giving to charity.

I disagree. The language used, "demands of others", smacks of socialism.

 

[Hobbit]

See, there's a difference between socialism and charity. Morality clearly lists charity as moral. However, people should be free to be moral or not. Taking people's money forcefully in order to give it to charity is actually an amoral stance, since taking somebody else's money for your favorite charity shows that you just want the emotional high, but would rather do it at somebody else's expense.

As I've said before, people should be free to be moral or amoral up to a point. The smaller the government, the better.

 

[007]

In keeping with your extremist M.O., you glimpsed at an article that read "immoral, bad; moral, good" and slung it in here without really checking what it said first.

Bullshit. I read everything I post. I liked what I read in the article, so I posted it. I knew YOU, as a liberal, WOULDN'T like it, which was just a bonus.

If you can offer a rational reason why spending your money instead of accumulating a stash is immoral, have at it.

Don't twist it MM. The article makes reference to someone who will spend every last penny of their money on themselves, putting their own selfish desires in front of everything/everyone else, and then when bad times hit, they have to depend on someone else/government to bail them out, as opposed to someone who will first SAVE some money, so when hard times hit, they can be self relient.

A grade schooler can understand that. Why couldn't you? Are you that shallow, or just ignorant?

And just to add, I bought my new Harley because I could "afford" it. I also have "money in the bank". Can you say that?

 

[MissileMan]

Don't twist it MM. The article makes reference to someone who will spend every last penny of their money on themselves, putting their own selfish desires in front of everything/everyone else, and then when bad times hit, they have to depend on someone else/government to bail them out, as opposed to someone who will first SAVE some money, so when hard times hit, they can be self relient.

The article says nothing even remotely like this. It is your interpretation of what the author was saying. Taken in context, exactly as written, it says that failing to accumulate wealth is immoral. You scream bloody murder when a judge "interprets" in this manner, but you think it's ok for you to. I'm pretty sure they have a word for that.

And just to add, I bought my new Harley because I could "afford" it. I also have "money in the bank". Can you say that?

Yeah, I have money in the bank. So what? The size of someone's bank account is no measure of their morality. If you think so, you're as mental as Atkinson.

 

[007]

The article says nothing even remotely like this. It is your interpretation of what the author was saying. Taken in context, exactly as written, it says that failing to accumulate wealth is immoral. You scream bloody murder when a judge "interprets" in this manner, but you think it's ok for you to. I'm pretty sure they have a word for that.


Yeah, I have money in the bank. So what? The size of someone's bank account is no measure of their morality. If you think so, you're as mental as Atkinson.

You're a fool MM, plain and simple. This statement right here sets the tone for how a person should interpret the article. Evidently you didn't/don't understand it...

Selfish those whose code of morality places them self ahead of all other considerations, so their behavior is controlled only by convenience (Immoral).
Unselfish those who revere a code of morality ahead of themselves, which controls their behaviour (Moral).

You're liberal, and I'm conservative. Our brains seem to be inherently wired different. Problem is, you and your liberal brethren seem to think narcism is a good thing. Self indulgence is a RIGHT! But when you need help, you expect everybody including the government to help you, without hesitation. A conservative on the other hand has "PLANNED AHEAD" to see himself through a hard time, because he wasn't so "self absorbed" as you liberals are.

So blow your holly horn in another direction MM, because the noise you're making here sounds like bologna.

 

[MissileMan]

You're a fool MM, plain and simple. This statement right here sets the tone for how a person should interpret the article. Evidently you didn't/don't understan it...



You're liberal, and I'm conservative. Our brains seem to be inherently wired different. Problem is, you and your liberal brethren seem to think narcism is a good thing. Self indulgence is a RIGHT! But when you need help, you expect everybody including the government to help you, without hesitation. A conservative on the other hand has "PLANNED AHEAD" to see himself through a hard time, because he wasn't so "self absorbed" as you liberals are.

So blow your holly horn in another direction MM, because the noise you're making heer sounds like bologna.

I got news for ya! I've worked hard for everything I have. I've never taken a dime of public assistance and never will. If I choose to spend MY money, it's not up for judgement by anyone, especially YOU.