Immorality in the trenches

[Realitycheck]

So I was wondering if immoral people typically win their battles and I came to the conclusion that there are a lot of factors to consider. I would have to say that money and power are always big factors in the potential for somebody to be corrupt, coverup, and make some people give up. Where the law doesn't control a given issue, society tends to provide a check to control peoples' abuses. But in this day and age of self-righteous society, there is plenty of occasion for things to fall through the cracks. What's your take on this falling in society?

[Dekan]

Was I the only one to read the post title, and think it was about what goes on in the trenches, before soldiers go into battle?

 

Into my unworthy mind, swam visions of the British trenches on the Western Front in July 1916. The eve of the Battle of the Somme. The soldiers facing almost certain death on the morrow. When they will have to advance into the murderous fire of the German machine-guns.

 

What did they get up to in the trenches the night before? Last-minute flings with smuggled-in French mademoiselles of easy virtue? Maybe even a little Oscar Wilde-style gay abandon?

 

Fascinating if sordid speculations, but alas - the post is on a higher plane, and deserves a better answer.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Dekan

[Realitycheck]

Just a little wandering musing. Recollections of parallels on a different plane, or something like that. Part of my undercover past.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Realitycheck

[wanabe]

Immoral people win battles, not wars.

 

Immorality has a way with catching up with an individual, eventually. For example by constantly exploiting china the American businessman now stands the threat of china becoming the dominate economic super power and the businessman money falling prey to inflation. Of course there are those who get away with immoral actions and suffer little consequences. What they don't get is great historical recognition; when their money goes so does there legacy.

[Guest lab_supplies]

Immoral people win battles, not wars.

 

Immorality has a way with catching up with an individual, eventually. For example by constantly exploiting china the American businessman now stands the threat of china becoming the dominate economic super power and the businessman money falling prey to inflation. Of course there are those who get away with immoral actions and suffer little consequences. What they don't get is great historical recognition; when their money goes so does there legacy.

Agreed. Being immoral will eventually catch up with a person. People want to be moral and do the right somewhere inside and if you don't listen to it, it will eat at you until you do something to change.

[questionposter]

So I was wondering if immoral people typically win their battles and I came to the conclusion that there are a lot of factors to consider. I would have to say that money and power are always big factors in the potential for somebody to be corrupt, coverup, and make some people give up. Where the law doesn't control a given issue, society tends to provide a check to control peoples' abuses. But in this day and age of self-righteous society, there is plenty of occasion for things to fall through the cracks. What's your take on this falling in society?

 

Even if someone is immoral, there still logic to consider. You don't want to just go around killing everyone because a., you'll make a more hostile society, which isn't really good for anyone, and b., you'll probably be caught anyway. Personally, I don't even get how someone can truely be "immoral" because every individual organism has at least some sense of what is right for it, and then even for immorally seeming people it doesn't seem like they would enjoy watching puppies in a sac drown.

Edited October 25, 2011 by questionposter

[Genecks]

As long as the consequences are few or not severe, immoral people tend to come out ahead.

Interestingly, moral individuals who have generated many social connections and then later turn corrupt make impressively good corrupt individuals, because they've acquired access to useful resources.

 

As a modern scientist, I'd have to say immorality does not exist, but consequentialism exists.

An individual hogging resources will eventually compete against someone who wants those resources, thus the problem of the immoral individual balances out.

Such is found with the corruption of national government against other national governments.

 

These often leads to a stalemate or a bloody competition for the resources, which just becomes natural.

 

Since the concept of morality has become increasingly removed from society, a way to judge and punish and individual for an immoral act has increasingly become more toward the economic side, such as hitting an individual's wallet. Done properly, this can cripple the socio-economic status of an individual and make them part of the slum of the world, the bottom bracket. And, interestingly, done properly, decreasing an individuals socio-economic status will put them into submission such that they become of the poor and lazy of the world OR they have much more difficulty trying to increase their wealth and status once more.

 

The problem with China and America is that Americans are stupid.

 

And the consequence for being stupid and being burned by the fire over and over again.

 

China wouldn't easily be able to build their economy unless other people supported them and brought money into that country.

Americans fail to realize that spending their money on foreign goods rather than national/local goods has brought money out of the country.

There is also the issue that foods are imported, simple foods, such as onions or oranges.

 

Although local geography is a different matter and may be more sensible in order to provide increased national defense.

 

Another thing to chew on:

 

There are still a lot of parts of the East to exploit. English language schools are an example.

Then again, I suspect people around England could just as well teach Asians English rather than Americans.

 

One last thing

 

There are places in this world where you can legally go around killing people. The problem is that you are also allowed to be killed. I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about parts of the world that have laws put on them so that people can express whatever religious ideas they have, even if that includes murder. I'd suggest not going to these parts of the world unless you want an island for yourself.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Genecks