Ways of being immoral

[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)
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.

[prof]

.

I just thought of three other ways of being immoral, namely being:

snobbish

racist

dogmatic, rigid, absolutistic.


The Axiom of Ethics {which reads: An ethical individual will tend to work toward, and approve of, efforts to make things morally better} is a recent development; I believe I came up with it late last year, or early this year.

The good news is that I have adapted the logical definition of "morality" that was proposed in earlier years so that it makes more sense; by applying the Axiom of Ethics {which you know by now, at least in its imperative form} to the concept of morality, we arrive, by deduction, at this: Make things better! when applied to morality becomes Make yourself better! which, in turn, implies Keep growing morally throughout life. It implies the 'continuous self-improvement' to which the o.p. of that thread "What is Morality?" was alluding. It all seems to fit together nicely.

Can you help make progress in ethical theory by exhibiting the logical structure, by defining (in a way that fits in with the frame-of-reference that the Unified Theory proposes) the words in the lists - the ways to be immoral - so that we have a sharper, and thus clearer idea of, say, the nature of "corruption." There is personal corruption and there is institutional corruption. Each can be analyzed in terms of the dimensions, S, E, and I. Extrinsic corruption, for example, may be the giving, or taking, of a bribe. [If money is involved it has Systemic overtones as well.]

Can you suggest for us the fine-structure of some of these other sorts of immorality?

It would be a great help if you could. To put it another way:would you, please, define these words, these varieties of immorality, so that they become terms in a system ...or so we see how one of them leads to another, i.e., their relationship.

Comments? Improvements?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

.

I just thought of three other ways of being immoral, namely being:

snobbish

racist

dogmatic, rigid, absolutistic.


The Axiom of Ethics {which reads: An ethical individual will tend to work toward, and approve of, efforts to make things morally better} is a recent development; I believe I came up with it late last year, or early this year.

The good news is that I have adapted the logical definition of "morality" that was proposed in earlier years so that it makes more sense; by applying the Axiom of Ethics {which you know by now, at least in its imperative form} to the concept of morality, we arrive, by deduction, at this: Make things better! when applied to morality becomes Make yourself better! which, in turn, implies Keep growing morally throughout life. It implies the 'continuous self-improvement' to which the o.p. of that thread "What is Morality?" was alluding. It all seems to fit together nicely.

Can you help make progress in ethical theory by exhibiting the logical structure, by defining (in a way that fits in with the frame-of-reference that the Unified Theory proposes) the words in the lists - the ways to be immoral - so that we have a sharper, and thus clearer idea of, say, the nature of "corruption." There is personal corruption and there is institutional corruption. Each can be analyzed in terms of the dimensions, S, E, and I. Extrinsic corruption, for example, may be the giving, or taking, of a bribe. [If money is involved it has Systemic overtones as well.]

Can you suggest for us the fine-structure of some of these other sorts of immorality?

It would be a great help if you could. To put it another way:would you, please, define these words, these varieties of immorality, so that they become terms in a system ...or so we see how one of them leads to another, i.e., their relationship.

Comments? Improvements?

It's not immoral to be any of those things as long as they don't hurt others. You might as well say it's 'immoral' to be shy, or extrovert, or bad-tempered.

[prof]

It's not immoral to be any of those things as long as they don't hurt others. You might as well say it's 'immoral' to be shy, or extrovert, or bad-tempered.

Okay. Thank you, fellow-veggie, for your fine contribution.

How about this? One is immoral, to some degree, if one hurts another by engaging in:

inconsideration
psychological or physical abuse, such as
power plays
bullying
ridiculing others
being condescending
being quick to squash efforts at creativity or innovation by "throwing cold water" on them.

prejudicial conduct (i.e., taking one characteristic of an individual as descriptive of the entire individual, and shunning, interfering with the liberty of, or otherwise hurting someone by one's actions.) ...this amounts to putting someone down by expressing prejudice toward them.



Comments? Corrections?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's not immoral to be any of those things as long as they don't hurt others. You might as well say it's 'immoral' to be shy, or extrovert, or bad-tempered.

Okay. Thank you, fellow-veggie, for your fine contribution.

How about this? One is immoral, to some degree, if one hurts another by engaging in:

inconsideration
psychological or physical abuse, such as
power plays
bullying
ridiculing others
being condescending
being quick to squash efforts at creativity or innovation by "throwing cold water" on them.

prejudicial conduct (i.e., taking one characteristic of an individual as descriptive of the entire individual, and shunning, interfering with the liberty of, or otherwise hurting someone by one's actions.) ...this amounts to putting someone down by expressing prejudice toward them.



Comments? Corrections?

Can't argue with those.

[The Voice of Time]

inconsideration
psychological or physical abuse, such as
power plays
bullying
ridiculing others
being condescending
being quick to squash efforts at creativity or innovation by "throwing cold water" on them.

Can't argue with those.

If you want to you can. But you'll likely argue that the exceptions are taken for granted. Anyways, to prove that it can be the case, I'll list some perhaps mind-changing exceptions:

Psychological or physical abuse: you may have to abuse a position you've been designated by a person or a system, in order to gain an advantage you consider critical to win something of value. Infiltration is an example where you abuse the powers you are given for the gain of your cause. You may also have to abuse people in order to trigger a reaction from people that will eventually be better than no reaction. Abuse is a matter of perspective.

Power plays: in countries with huge and widespread control of freedom of speech and/or freedom of movement, power plays are a way to trick the system into letting moderate people gain power and influence.

Bullying: also a matter of perspective, you may have to "bully" others who are behaving badly to get them to change their minds, if you have no other means. This is most clearly apparent when the other person has complete autonomy and there's no systematic way in which you influence the person's behaviour. Ways to bully the person implies crippling their capabilities, isolating their connections and harassing their attempts. An example of this is sabotage, it doesn't have to be a country versus another. It can be a group of vigilantes versus a drug cartel in Mexico, or it can be a masked and stealthy protester against a local tyrannt. It can also be the other way around, a local political leader versus troublemakers, where police or other means are not sufficient.

Ridicule: in Putins Russia, the seriousness about Putin is one of his greatest strengths, and ridicule is a way of undermining his efforts to influence the world and dominate the areas surrounding Russia. One could argue freely and openly, the problem is that it'll all just end in stalemates... as soon as you start arguing, the stronger you become the stronger your opposition, until you can no longer be heard. And so ridicule is a way of undermining the very seriousness about the case, because when people stop being serious they start seeing very obvious connections they can otherwise censor in their head. It's a way of leading a propaganda war against a powerhungry and dangerous leader, in a country that is far from lacking extremists to endanger the environment of opposition. What if you could produce a really good comedy on Putin's leadership that showed his true colours? And what if you could mass-distribute this across Russia? Ridicule has a lot of power, and like any weapon can be used for good or bad.

Condescending: the truth is -> some people simply just are more important than others. We care more about the ability of our prime ministers or presidents to able to do their job, than we do our neighbour perhaps, and for a good reason. Mass-condescension is what the ultimate leader has to do, in order to keep off people wanting to use him or her for their own means. The people who are not worth the prime ministers time must be kept at bay so that he can do his job, which requires a lot of his attention. Of course, there's no reason to yell this out and remind people of it, but if somebody gets in the way of efficiency, they may simply need to be told that the person cannot attend to their needs, that they have more important things to do.

Quick at squashing efforts at creativity or innovation: people must know what is important in life, and similarly those who pursue unimportant things must so be told, so that they are aware their worthlessness efforts and that they can orient themselves towards things that make a difference and make people's lives better. If they persist in doing worthless things, then one must try to push for a re-orientation as best as possible, and if necessary, find the weak spots and crush the idea such that it may not drive people to poverty. People who drive families to bankruptcy, endanger other people, refuse to produce essential benefits but still reaps rewards, or otherwise are unwilling to co-operate in the essential business of society and take up their responsibilites, are examples of such people. Bankruptcy can shatter lives, endangering can kill or disable others, refusal can inhibit and depress societies... the list goes on.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Come on Prof, I'm with you on all but the following, as you've allowed no room for those that are challenged

tactless
gullible
lacking in practical wisdom (unnecessarily idiotic)
continuously emotionally-miserable
always unhappy.

[prof]

inconsideration
psychological or physical abuse, such as
power plays
bullying
ridiculing others
being condescending
being quick to squash efforts at creativity or innovation by "throwing cold water" on them.

Can't argue with those.

If you want to you can. ... I'll list some perhaps mind-changing exceptions:

Psychological or physical abuse: you may have to abuse a position you've been designated by a person or a system, in order to gain an advantage ....

At his point it is appropriate to remind readers of this thread I posted nearly two-and-one-half years ago: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9375 The o.p. of "Ends And Means" argued that if ends are not compatible with means (and vice versa) it is then unlikely that the (worthwhile, moral, good-cause, noble) end sought would ever be obtained - for morally-questionable means generally do not result in worthwhile ends or goals, but rather one ends up with just more of a mess, ethically speaking. {In that thread, near the end of it, I also offered a definition of a key term for Ethics, namely "war." And we discussed when war might be justified - according to Just War theory.}

Infiltration is an example where you abuse the powers you are given for the gain of your cause. You may also have to abuse people in order to trigger a reaction from people that will eventually be better than no reaction. Abuse is a matter of perspective..

Infiltration is, to me, very morally-questionable. Undercover cops, and spies, are not authentic people. Often they are not sure about their own identity. While in the infiltration role they may be called upon to commit violence, even to murder, to betray, to commit some crime, to do all kinds of conduct that violate ethics, that fails to In-value individuals.

You write, "you may also have to abuse people..." Is this what you consider to be "ethics"??

If the writer personally was the one being abused would be still nonchalantly say: "Abuse is a matter of perspective.." I doubt it, unless one is highly influenced by, and modeling his life after, Epictetus, the Stoic. Where though is the borderline between one's practicing this and the highly-neurotic condition known as "masochism"? ...wonder how this stance on abuse (cruelty too?) fits in with Theoretical and/or Applied Ethics.... If exceptions to a principle exist (at our current stage of moral development), does that mean the principle is unsound? ...Does abuse do harm? If so, is "Do no harm" invalid now?

No, I fear this kind of thinking violates the means-ends relationship: abusing people will not result in a more ethical world - or even one that has some resemblance to the more-humane societies we see in Scandinavia and in Finland.

Power plays: in countries with huge and widespread control of freedom of speech and/or freedom of movement, power plays are a way to trick the system into letting moderate people gain power and influence..

As I've said in many places, in a situation of constant emergency, or in one where options are very limited, say, by a tyranny or a dictatorship, desperate measures are called for, and will be used. {The child drowning before your eyes scenario; the burning truck in which the driver is trapped; the person in the foxhole being shot at, etc. come to mind}

In the case VOT cites, yes, I too - since I > E > S - would likely participate in "tricking the system." I wouldn't, however describe these efforts as "power plays." I believe this is a misplaced use of language ...stretching it, just to show that one can be critical, and can go out of the way to find exceptions to someone else's philosophical analysis.

Could it be an example of "throwing cold water on an attempt at creativity"?

Bullying: also a matter of perspective, you may have to "bully" others who are behaving badly to get them to change their minds, if you have no other means.

I don't accept that there are "no other means." Is it possible that one just hasn't looked for them with the same zeal as when - perhaps - one doesn't want to be constructive, but rather the opposite.

Ways to bully the person implies crippling their capabilities, isolating their connections and harassing their attempts. An example of this is sabotage, it doesn't have to be a country versus another. It can be a group of vigilantes versus a drug cartel in Mexico, or it can be a masked and stealthy protester against a local tyrannt. It can also be the other way around, a local political leader versus troublemakers, where police or other means are not sufficient..

In cases of tyranny, or restrictions on liberty and freedom,or if I lived under a regime like the Third Reich of the Nazis, I too would engage in sabotage. In no way would I construe it as "bullying." This is a very strange use of language indeed that we see displayed in that quotation.

A bully, in ordinary English, is a big fellow, or a boss, that throws his wight around and intimidates someone he believes is weaker than he. I will stand by my position that to be a "bully" (as it is ordinarily defined) is to be "immoral."

Ridicule: in Putins Russia, the seriousness about Putin is one of his greatest strengths, and ridicule is a way of undermining his efforts to influence the world and dominate the areas surrounding Russia.... Ridicule has a lot of power, and like any weapon can be used for good or bad..

Of course. I agree that it is entirely permissible to ridicule or satire politicians, or power figures who think they are superior (or morally-more-important) than you or I. I've said this before, in the Unified Theory of Ethics treatise - which it may be time to re-read, in order to grasp my ethics. ...assuming one cares to understand my viewpoint.

Condescending: the truth is -> some people simply just are more important than others. We care more about the ability of our prime ministers or presidents to able to do their job... if somebody gets in the way of efficiency, they may simply need to be told that the person cannot attend to their needs, that they have more important things to do..

Again, how many would speak of this as "mass-condescension"?? And yes, it is ethically advisable to put people first even if that means getting "in the way of efficiency." Giving respect to individuals is far more valuable for us than efficiency for the sake of efficiency

Be wary of those who, in the name of "important people" would suppress or ignore the voice of an ordinary citizen. The latter, in a democracy, could have a solution to an urgent problem, or could suggest a wise policy, which the president, C.E.O., or P.M. never thought of. The citizen should be listened to. A society which doesn't listen is not a free society and is not as ethical as it might be !!

Quick at squashing efforts at creativity or innovation: people must know what is important in life, and similarly those who pursue unimportant things must so be told, so that they are aware their worthlessness efforts and that they can orient themselves towards things that make a difference and make people's lives better. ...People who drive families to bankruptcy, endanger other people, refuse to produce essential benefits but still reaps rewards

VOT is very morally-judgmental here. I fail to see how "people who drive families to bankruptcy" are engaged in what I named "efforts at creativity".

If people are dependent (say on a government handout) does that mean that they cannot be creative or innovative? It could mean that they are "challenged" in some way, or disabled, or a child. [Or a major multi-national corporation getting subsides that are ethically-questionable, perhaps.] Incidentally,ares there any individuals here at this Forum who have not oriented "themselves towards things that make a difference and make people's lives better"? They better watch out or their ideas or concepts may get squashed by the critic.

[The Voice of Time]

Prof I didn't actually understand very much of what you meant by power plays, so I based my answer on the power plays that go on in the highly successful Netflix series "House of Cards", if you've ever seen that one. There the unsympathetic individual rises up in the ranks by clever utilization of accidental circumstances, eventually becoming president.

The series is an expression of getting one's will through by exploitation of opportunities, including twice murder of an allied politician and a journalist. While the series is of course not what I think of when I idealize the situation, the mechanics of pulling strings to make things happen that are important, is a very tempting idea. "Playing with power" then means to look for ways to influence the course of events such that they become part of some general direction you prefer.

The alternative to such power play, in my opinion, is self-imposed failure. The consequences of which can be trivial to dire or terrible.

[HexHammer]

..the usual clueless babble..

[duszek]

If someone feels always unhappy, is told that it is immoral and therefore tries hard to be happy or to at least appear so then he becomes phoney.

How to avoid immorality in this case ?

Should one swallow Prozac and thus become moral again ?

[duszek]

A possible solution:

If you are always unhappy you don´t appreciate God´s blessings and are not grateful for what was given to you.

You have a piece of bread and butter this evening and a glass of water ?
Some people in this world don´t.
So say thank you and be happy because of it as long as you enjoy your meal.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A possible solution:

If you are always unhappy you don´t appreciate God´s blessings and are not grateful for what was given to you.

You have a piece of bread and butter this evening and a glass of water ?
Some people in this world don´t.
So say thank you and be happy because of it as long as you enjoy your meal.

Silly reasoning. So you should feel happy if your legs get blown off because some people have their arms AND legs blown off. Then again, you should be happy if only your arms and legs get blown off because some people have their arms and legs blown off AND they are also blinded. The blinded ones should feel 'blessed' because at least they're not dead, like some people. Homeless people should feel 'blessed' to live in a car, because some people have to live in a cardboard box......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

Besides, melancholics write great poetry and music.
Another thing, bread and butter is not a balanced meal. Not having a balanced diet can exacerbate depression.
Btw, there is no such thing as 'god's blessing' because there are no such things as gods.

[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)
continuously emotionally-miserable
lying
always unhappy.

... see the thread What is Morality? or re-read it: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10207

Come on Prof, I'm with you on all but the following, as you've allowed no room for those that are challenged

tactless
gullible
lacking in practical wisdom (unnecessarily idiotic)
continuously emotionally-miserable
always unhappy.

Greetings, SpheresOfBalance

You have a point there. Thank you.

I did, though, say "unnecessarily idiotic" not "being an idiot." There are timers when many of us, including myself, lack savoir faire, as they say in French. This lapse in practical wisdom disqualifies one from being fully moral by the standards of the Virtue Ethics school of thought. I discuss this at greater length, quoting Rosalind Hursthouse, a world-class philosopher, at the Applied Ethics Forum, in the thread initiated by Tom Beiter. In Greek, I think the word for this is phronesis, or something like that.

Yes, a state of chronic unhappiness may be Clinical Depression, a physical condition. If one has a thyroid gland deprivation, one way it shows itself is that one is constantly grouchy.

For morality it is better to be skeptical than to be gullible. However, as you remind us, those who have gullibility may be simple-minded ... a physical handicap due to a brain that is not fully functioning.

Thanks for the feedback. It's good to know you are with me on the rest.

I posted this thread partly to show that I am not naive about the ways to go wrong ethically. It didn't help my standing though with the troll that patrols this Forum. {To be fair, let us hypothesize that he has no use for theory and believes that doing ethics consists only in presenting a moral dilemma and then showing how to resolve it. ...But if he has no use for theory, then WHY does he come to an Ethical Theory Forum }



I prefer to emphasize the positive, so if readers may have forgotten the content of "An Analysis of the concept "self"" it may pay to re-read it. Here is a link: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11597&view=next

Comments? Improvements? Questions?

[prof]

.


Here is an interesting little book, a good read, that merits your attention. Scroll down this page to read the customer reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Code-Moral- ... merReviews

Its topic is How do Moral Revolutions Happen? These are changes in cultural ethos. They have to do with the self-identity of groups and of the individuals within those groups. What he calls honor codes I have called value-structures. They are part of our self-concept ...the Self-image part: it is the "Self."

[As you know, philosophy is conceptual analysis. The famous question "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" is, after all, a call for an analysis of the concept "sound."]

Kant stressed that ethics is very much about practice. It is "what we do." But doesn't our thoughts and our feelings enter into what we do? How we think and feel influences how we act, don't they? Our inner honor code is very much affected by our cognitive beliefs, by how we think, by what we think is "proper." Recognition is a basic human need: we crave it from our friends, neighbors, colleagues and cohorts. Whether we admit it or not, we want respect. Our ethical principles include what Dr. Appiah speaks of as our honor code. Part of the business of Ethical Theory is to establish a set of Ethical principles. In my threads and posts I have offered a few.


Your comments?