"Public", "Morality", Feelings, Reasoning, and Practicalities

Posted by Mamas_Wae On Sunday, December 29, 2013 0 comments
Just toss the phrase "public" around and everything appears to be better.

It appears to be "moral."

But when we use emotions and "morals" to information us instead of logic and practicalities, we, obviously, don't succeed to see the "logical" results of our "moral" and "emotional" activities that we take, as well as unable to see all of the "practicalities" (as several and different as they may be: we do not know until we discover them) from our "emotional" and "moral" activities.

And thus we have choices created that cause to terrible results because we did not adhere to logic and practicalities, despite all of the "We didn't mean to! It was an accident! We were trying to do good!" This is no reason when you haught "morals" as superior and "science" and "rationale" as cool, determining and wicked.

When you vilify fact and excellent stuff, you get no help away from the sensible results of your misdirected, prideful, hate-driven activities.

When you create your bed, you lie in it, and you get no whim from me.

Mercy comes from God: not me.

There comes a moment when you have to experience the repercussions of your activities to understand not to do it again.

More hypocritical "societal" advice: grownups educating children about how your activities have repercussions, but grownups operating away from the repercussions of their own activities and condemning others for their own misfortunes due to their own choices.

There is a distinction between sympathy and shame and I will not let people shame me. I will help out people if I wish, but I am not "morally" needed to.

There comes a moment when you have to ask yourself if it is better to let people take part in their dangerous actions to hopefully see that they can modify (they might not), or you allow their dangerous actions by offering them a incorrect feeling of protection.

My own individual record has trained me that the better outcome comes from the people getting out of bed on their own.

Or, if they don't awaken, it is their own lifestyle choice.

If I wish to use sources on these people, I may, but "moral requirements" that compensate dangerous actions is a little unreasonable to me, and if our objective is to help OUT those interesting in dangerous actions, it seems to me that the best approach is to either let them eliminate themselves enough to a factor that they want to modify, or let them take part in the choices that they wish. I should not be "morally required" to provide them sources and to allow their dangerous actions. The point that the globe "moral" is used is ridiculous because you aren't solving the main of their dangerous actions (an objective confirmed by the phrase "moral" used to determine the cause), but rather you are fulfilling them for ruining themselves, and that seems like a perverse motivation, and seems counter-intuitive, and actually seems to do the actual reverse of its designed objective.


Post a Comment