Theupbringing of children, thinking errors and moral

Some quite easy things, if you notice them, help you to be moral.
Children at some age are interested in what is a good tactic in the world and in life. Healthy versus broken is a good comparison to make estimates on strenght. Noticing that healthy is also according to feelings, helps to fit into the same picture likings, needs and civilized values.
Babies have a great potential but all do not end likewise intelligent. That seems to be commected to how they make divisions, what is the basic structure like that they seek for and that seems to be connected to the visual environment as a baby. Admiring trees and the nature as a baby could offer more sensitive, more intelligent, more feeling, more rational, more practical way of looking at things and understanding them intellectually. Also later on comparing one's thought to nature landscape could increase understanding.
Already as a child people have different liking on what areas of life they want to most associate with and work in as adults. Trying to compete with others in their strenghts often ends up trying to replace those areas of life by one's own favorite areas of life. So instead of competing about position, searching for one's own place in the world, the smaller the more one area of life centered one wants to be, and using on other areas of life other ways of thinking and values suited to cultivating those things could bring a much more moral result as long as one understands that soldiers fight for better life and inbetter living conditions and not just for destruction only and that soldiers too need skills like sports etc and that one has the right to be an individual as far as one is moral enough, for example follows the saying "Live and let others live!".

Tidying behaviour to moral

If some group or nation, which has high skill but a lack of moral, would like to by it's own common effort tidy it's behaviour to superbly moral, then setting the areas that deeds affect in the world according to the rule "Live and let others live!", see http://finnishskills.blogspot.fi/2012/10/live-and-let-others-live.html , would without altering much of what is done and what is not done or people's level of moral otherwise, lead to excellent moral and so propably to a much much higher position in the world.

Also, if some group is interested mainly at the level of individuals and has a lack of moral, it could propably tidy it'sbehaviour to quite moral by adding to each deed at it's planning phace as the last thing done looking at the thing in the wide context of the world and finding ways to somewhat alter the thing done so that it would be moral in the world. This has to do with the fact that you need to look at the world before you can arrive at things well for the world, you have to aim at moral efore you can succeed at being moral. And the last thing thought of typically settles side issues, the ones not central in one's attention.

Translation rights

One can tranbslate this blog and my texts and my videos (khtervola) on links from this blog, morally to other languages.

Moral is the most benefical option

Please see the English text at http://paratiisiteoria.blogspot.fi/2013/09/paratiisissa-on-kaarme.html

Preventing violence

There is a need for violence f some get too squeezed, for example if some institution needs repairing or has as it's workers malicious people who lie. So the ability to notice lies, especially outrageous lies that cover evil deeds, and the tendency to not to accept lies as excuses for doing evil lessens the need for violence. If some institution goes all wrong, that is a serious fault and should not be tolerated "even if" the workers there lie. Better than having a wrongdoing worker, is to have no such worker at all, at least not in a deciding position.
The ability to notice well crimes done by foreigners, would in my opinion demand an understanding of how climate differencies, closeness of borders, major money sources etc affect culture, normal ways to do things and moral - and how to recognize what country people are originally from.
One also needs a good idea of how to defend things and how much violence to use and how much room for freedom to leave to each person or gorup. The Finnish rule "Live and let others live!" is very good for that purpose!

Justice in hierargies brings good will in return

Typically if you have difficulties with people not being at all moral, you have assumed a much much too high position in hierargy, a position that demands much more skill than what you have and much more good will and wisdom of life than what you have, so that people get angry about yoi messing their lives badly or that when you try to guide something you do not have the faintest idea of how it works well. But then if you assume the position which justice determines to you, then these problems get solved, you respect the wisdom of others and get treated well in return.
Similarly, if you assume a much too low position compared to your skills and your amount of moral, then it is like neglecting caring about important things and so other people who copy from you run around carelessly and some not at all wise men speak out loud. If you then assume your correct position according to justice and care about things, decide to somewhat, things find their places, there is peace and love around and people treat you with peace.

Avoiding causing great harm

Often worst deeds are with complete disregard for the value of the things in question. They are done because the person does not care about those things so he/she throws them away, sets them aside from the road of other things without paying attention to what happens to them.
They are typically situations where he thinks that those things do not matter in the world - and that if they would matter, he/she would have no power to influence them. So when it ends in a disaster, it is typically so that neither the person doing wrong, nor the victim, have decided who has power to influence things if it is a big thing in practise for someone. Instead it has been some third party saying that now the man dicedes the hen's life or the like, maybe someone who was estimated to be a neutral side watcher but who instead was an enemy of the woman and a sexual admirer of the man to a degree that makes no sense.
Things like this happen also when people want to distance themselves but a third party forces them to be close. Like when children grow up and people think taht they need some other adult, some like-minded adult to support them and they call that kind of adults "mothers", and then some idiot (a sexual admirer of the biological mother?) thinks that it is their biological mother who should get to influence their lives so much more than this far, which neither the mother or the adult child want, and so they end up the mother destroying the life of her child in order to get distance.
So it matters a lot that third parties should not be allowed to command people to be close or influential in each other's lives.
It also matters a lot that if you do not care about something or someone, do not touch that thing in the slightes, do not influence that person's life in the slightest - or it will be the biggest worst evil deed in your life.

Honesty

There is no clear separation between honesty and lies. Instead there are honesty, mild lies, ordinary lies, outrageous lies and acting. Honestyy is a way to get things work well. It is a way to gain position, influence things even otherwise and form better bonds with people and prevent others from hurting you.
People want some information to be a ground for their actions, and if they have noticed that they can rely on your information, it is likely that your view get heard and taken into account. So if you have points that are worth something, you gain position via honesty. It is also easier for others to take you along if they can be sure about what  they get.
Being honest it is easier for one to notice how honest others are, so you kind of get the same level of honesty in return via social eye.
If you are both honest and at least sometimes outspoken, not too polite. Then you can stop dangers before they happen, just by telling "I do not believe that." and not going along in dangerous things. While liars often don't have such emergency stop possibility in their relationships because they are afraid of others pseaking the truth about themselves.
If you are yourself worth some quite high position, you get it easily via honesty, but if you would lie, you wouldn't get it.
In groups honesty makes the group work well together, as things get treated accordingly what they are like and reactions are with wisdom and common sense with the whole group working well together. But that demands goodwill and freedom. Honesty gives room for deserved freedom and freedom to good spirit and that to good will.
If you are somewhat honest, you get somewhat the benefits of honesty. If you lie and act a lot, continually, you get into a mess where people use harsh measures and rotten things get impossible to cure, where people find room only via more harsh ways - so as to reach realism and real power balance, which were in a sense the central point in arranging things when people were honest and sincere and there was goodwill around.

European moral does not mean copying European arrangements

European moral means mainly justice, human values, carrying responsibility about big things in life, in the lives of others, in the society and in the world, common sense like objective thinking with a picture of the whole, safeguarding the future, protecting nature, compassion and freedom and grass roots democracy. (not in this order)
European arrangements on the other hand are ways to arrange culturally European people to form a society that is good to live in and responsible also otherwise. For example the yusefulness of many professions comes from them not being corrupted. If some profession is rotten, there is no use keeping it, since it does not do it's work well and it supports unjustice and maybe cruelty. So of all kinds of people one cannot form an European type of society just by copying the professions etc. Instead one should try to build a better moral and not in looks only but in what people really do, which values they respect in practise when evaluated by the end results of their actions and nonactions.