a moral person who lacks humanity(like most hypocrites)
VS a humane but immoral person (like Paris Hilton)
2007-08-29 14:19:56 · 6 answers · asked by ♥Slide♥ 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
@jeancommunicates, right you are! this is really a question of choice between two evils...(was it not obvious?)...so just ******* CHOOSE the lesser evil...and explain why.
gosh why do people have to complicate everything?*wipes blood from brain hemmorhage
2007-08-29 14:50:08 · update #1
and for you to say that no one is good? that's just plain bs
everyone is good, not perfect...but good....it's just that... time, life experiences, environment, ignorance etc....corrupts that "good"inside us somehow....but it does not necessarily mean we're all that "bad"....and some people...no matter what they go through...they remain good inside.
2007-08-29 17:10:36 · update #2
I would say inhumanity is the worse. Immorality is sometimes nessasary for the better good. For example it is nessasary to kill in order to sustain life.
2007-08-29 15:50:14 · answer #1 · answered by lufiabuu 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are both bad. However, I think you are putting unnecessary labels on people. Most people with morals are also humane because they have Christian values. And I wouldn't describe Paris Hilton as immoral; but simply that she lacks good judgment. Being humane is treating people (and animals) with kindness and respect. Immorality is the lack of morals and ethics. Hypocrites are those who do not practice what they preach. I believe you are comparing apples with oranges and kumquats, if you get my drift.
2007-08-29 21:31:49 · answer #2 · answered by gldjns 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The word Humane is derived from Human. It is not only about caring for animals. It is about caring about humans. A person who shows no respect for humans yet professes to love animals is not only inhumane, but also incapable of love.
Immorality is really a matter of opinion. Can we call someone immoral who does not have the capacity to care about others unconditionally?
2007-08-29 21:33:15 · answer #3 · answered by phil8656 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't humanity a moral? Who's to say whether Hilton is moral or not?
Seeing as immorality includes inhumanity, I'd say it's worse.
2007-08-29 21:28:17 · answer #4 · answered by shmux 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are both bad. You are choosing one evil over the other.
Seldom is immorality kind, tender and caring. Morals have a lot more to do than being sexually virtuous. Humaness is more than kindness. Often one pollutes the other. It is like saying a person is half bad and half good. The truth is none of us are good, not even one. The only righteousness in man is the righteousness of Christ.
2007-08-29 21:36:34 · answer #5 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion, The worst thing that anyone can do is to cause harm to other people.. and in this case I believe that an inhumane person is more capable of causing harm to others, therefore, he/she is worse than and immoral person.
To me an immoral person is mainly hurting him/herself, although still capable of hurting others but not as much as the one who lacks humanity...
2007-08-29 21:32:59 · answer #6 · answered by Ray Ray 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋