Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by LeftHookBrutal, Feb 19, 2011.
Why is it immoral to be a very bad man?
Because people don't like it
Well, if you are a sociopath who manifests extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience, then it is not possible to answer your question.
Because bad and immoral are linked. It's like asking why is doing bad things considered not good? If you acknowledge that things can be immoral, then you are basically acknowledging that there are bad things, and people can be bad. Moral is considered good, thus immoral is bad. Linked. What is good and what is bad are subject to the collective conscience and ideas of the people.
Exactly: we need the OP's definition of "moral", "immoral", "good" and "bad" before understanding the meaning and intent of his post. In and of themselves, these terms are so relative as to be practically meaningless without an understand of his POV.
FWIW, I've been called "immoral" by lots of people who don't understand my ethical standards, though more generally I prefer the term "depraved", myself , yet no one has called me "bad" since I turned ten or so, except to call me a "bad boy", which wasn't a negative critique.
Kindred spirits we two :wink:
Could just be amoral. Nothing bad in that per se.
Then of course, there's the difference between immoral and illegal.
Some would say that you are not being the best you can be. If you insist on being bad, why are you not the Worst???
But srsly you need to provide definitions.
I've said many times that just because something's legal doesn't make it right any more than making something illegal makes it wrong. Then I quickly add that I've never been arrested
This reminds me of a Philosophy class I took called "Right & Wrong." I was always a big fan of relativism when calling topics like these into question, but maybe that was just the lazy way out. :smile:
I'm another fan of relativism (although I'm also lazy :tongue.
I'm totally lazy. And so it's a matter of course, that this entire thread is a waste of time, as there was no legitimate query put forth initially, via the OP.
I yawn in yer general die-rect-ion.
It would seem that in order to make the judgment that a person is a very bad man, you would have to understand why it would be immoral, and I don't know how you could be capable of making one judgment but not the other.
How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Fish!
No my head does hurt.
There is a level of amorality that would be considered sociopathic.
Is this bad?
Not if you want that person to fight your wars or work on Wall Street.
Really? Current worldwide financial crisis notwithstanding, then?
My Lai Massacre?
I would think the best warriors would be paragons of virtue. But what do I know?
It is well known that most conscripted soldiers will not shoot to kill. It is easier to let someone else do the dirty business of taking life. I believe these studies date back to the US Civil War.
Any decent army profiles their hardcore troops to find those who will kill without a second thought or can be easily trained to. Chivalry it ain't.
And these studies indicated that sociopaths were the best soldiers?
They were the best at killing those they were told to.