Immorality Might be Moral?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

At what point of being Moral are you actually just being a hypocrite? At what point of being so morally superior to others are you actually hurting morality? Could it be considered that being immoral at times, instead of working so hard to be moral against so much opposition that doesn’t want to work so hard that you burn yourself out and become immoral simply because you feel like you’re getting nowhere, would actually set a better pace and message for morality than the aforementioned ‘working-til-you-burn-out’ fashion?

If you could show that you could be moral and work toward being moral at a slower pace; also showing your immorality and normal and natural human tendencies and how you want to put those behind you simply to get along better with others, but also show that you understand how some people only trust other immoral people and the sheer fact that you are still normal and natural and thus have immoralistic tendencies, wouldn’t it go farther in getting others to also try to set aside their immoralistic tendencies to learn how to get along better and to start trusting morality in others if it can be seen as people simply trying and not as some freak of nature that nobody can actually relate to?

2

I try to be the best version of me that I can but also try to avoid comparing myself to others because morality is not a
competition. Though I am actually competing but only with my own demons not anyone elses. One can become better
over time but one can never become perfect. So always room for improvement as it is but an eternal work in progress
Modifying and adapting and altering and controlling the thing simply known as the human condition that all of us have
None of it matters in the grand scheme of things. Nothing actually does. But it really does matter in the here and now

3

For something to be immoral one has to assume the validity of morality.

4

Any human that eats a pig is immoral.

5

Oink. Cows are sentient, too. Cows have cloven hooves, too. Why is it so immoral to eat a pig as opposed to a cow? Plants are living, too; they have lives and thoughts, too. Why is it so much more immoral to vegan to eat meat than vegetables?

6

Breaking ones morality has a lot to do with ones values. If it is more “valuable” to break the value of ones judgment of right and wrong, well, then, by all means go ahead and go against what you think is “right”

Morality after all, is based on values ultimately and while it may seem contradicting to do what goes against morality - yes its not preferential to go against ones morality, but if the benefit of breaking ones morality at least at current judgment is worth more than the cost of breaking ones morality - then it occurs. Is it bad? Sure, somewhat. But then you must understand it is not really morality that drives us, it is our values, and there is a constant struggle of how to obtain our values, balancing between the values that drive our moral judgment, it is very complex within our minds and as such we can err and not really do what we value. We are complex and so are our values, how we process them, how we judge them against what we really want. Our mood affects them, it may even change based on the weather, the moon being out, how tired we are.

“There’s no escaping reason, no evading purpose, because we both know, that without purpose there is no reason to exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us, that defines us, it is purpose that binds us.” – Agent Smith

I don’t exactly agree with Agent Smith, if it were up to me I’d change this diatribe to:

You can escape reason in denial, however there is no evasion of values, because we all know that without values there are no reasons to exist. It is values that connect us, values that pull us, that guide us, that drive us, that define us, it is value that binds us.

This sounds much better, than the robotic diatribe of Agent Smith. Values have shaped our world by leading to the undeniable alteration of the human experience for all. It is the definitive force behind all human actions and as such the weight of the world is on this one simple concept; values. A value is the reason behind every single event in the history of the human race yet I find that this topic has been touched rather lightly in the field of philosophy for the most part given the massive impact values have on everything that we can have an impact on; essentially it is the core of power of the entire human race.

So with that, shouldn’t we not analyze this subject deeply? Where do our values come from? Where are they going? Why do we have them? Values seem to be innate, yet we learn new values through our experience. But these values that are learned are rooted from innate values it seems that may not have been accessed previously. But why would we say, suddenly see something new and value it? Is it within our control? We can’t necessarily explain why we may value chocolate ice cream over vanilla, it’s because our bodies find one more desirable over the other.

Values precede purpose as a result. Purpose, comes from what we value. We derive our purpose here in this world based upon what we want.

7

I think we need a rigorous definition of ‘hypocrite’ here, because I see it used in a lot of ways that I don’t actually think are immoral. “Trying to be better than you are” or “Condemning your own vices” are sometimes called hypocrisy, and they both seem necessary to me to be a good person.

I don’t see a how a perfectly moral person would be a hypocrite, because they wouldn’t have any wrong behaviors they are condemning in others.

8

Perfectly moral human beings do not exist and trying to be the best that you can but not always succeeding
is not hypocrisy but just weakness. Hypocrisy is where you are not making any effort and simply do not care

9

The OP’s first sentence should be understood in the sense of moral as the definition provided below, otherwise it doesn’t make sense, ucissore and surreptitious

mor·al
ˈmôrəl/
adjective
1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

10

I dont recall plants or cows passing the mirror test, therefore it is more wrong to eat pigs than cows. I myself dont eat cows, I herd they are intelligent. but I would say it is more evil to eat pigs than cows.

I dont think plants have thoughts because I think they dont have brains. It is not evil to eat plants.

11

Plants may not have brains in the sense that humans and other mammals have brains, but to state that they don’t have thoughts or any way at all to process what goes on around them could be a grave underestimation of their abilities. I’d rather not underestimate anything unless it’s a really powerful enemy that the underestimation of throws off-balance and causes them to stumble and show a vital weakness, just the same as over-estimating the abilities of some can cause them a lot of pain by trying to be or do what others see them capable of being or doing, or on the flipside, of showing a vital weakness as they overstep their bounds and fail in doing something so far beyond their own abilities that their ego would not allow them to see how it could backfire on them.

Just because something seems unable to self-recognize doesn’t mean it’s incapable of self or of individuality. And, how would you gauge a plants ability to recognize its self, at that point unless you were able to work out some mode of communication between you and the plant that you could accurately rely on and then you might take into account that not everything in existence likes to be the subject of endless testing.

12

Doubt you are right, and the question is, who has more sentience, plants or animals? Animals probably have more sentience, therefore it is probably more wrong to eat them.

If you believe plants probably have more sentience than animals, then you should make it illegal to cut the grass because cutting the grass is more evil than killing somebody.

Also, eating fruit is like having sex with a plant, that is how they reproduce, so you cannot say eating fruit is evil.

13

Eating plants and animals are morally justifiable. It isn’t immoral. If you value plant life and animal life more than your sustenance, perhaps it is immoral for you. But not for me. I value my sustenance more than the plant life and animal life I eat.

14

A semblance of an argument but it has flaws.
Animals might have less of a percent value than your own life, but what is this percent value in relation to other humans? Could it be argued that some humans, maybe some people you don’t like, have less of a percent than the animals you eat? Then doesn’t it follow that some rules and regulations do not follow your own moral idealogy?

Also, the second thing, is even though value them less, does hurting them make it right? For example, I might see a stranger walking down the street that I don’t value, but does hurting them to satisfy some internal craving for bloodlust sustenance make it right?

Third question is, is how much sustanence is gotten, and does it reach a threshold? If you gain the required threshold of sustenance from eating meat once every three days, as the same threshold is reached by eating it for breakfast lunch and dinner, is not this excessive gluttony and unneeded suffering and waste, and therefore, typically viewed as morally bad?

15

What I value doesn’t have flaws, its a matter of opinion. There are only flaws in my desire unless it conflicts with other desires I have.

You are responding as if everything has some sort of objective value, it does not.

16

Your argument seems to be “Whatever I benefit from, is good, and it doesnt matter if it affects others negatively”.
I dont see how that can be toted as a valid moral logic.

I dont see anything in there saying that you only eat meat until the required threshold of sustanence is reached, it seems to me you promote gluttony, and not adhering to threshold maintanence.

17

Do not assume anything about my morality. You are not qualified to do so. You don’t know what logic I used other than what I told you, and that is all it comes down to.

18

You seem like a hedonist.

Takes me back to the stone age.

19

You seem to have a problem of assuming Things.

20

You seem to have a problem of clarifying things, then saying you didn’t clarify and then not bothering to clarify them more but complain about the other person stating the already clarified things.