When Desire is ‘UnRighteous’, Reasoning Becomes ‘UnRighteous’

Suppose a society vilifies adultery, considers adultery ‘UnRighteous’ Behavior. In presence of such agreement, there must exist some rationalizing thought, equivalently rationalizing reasoning for characterization of adultery as UnRighteous Behavior.

Let us refer to a reasoning that rationalizes a societal agreement about ‘appropriate behaviors’ as a Righteous Rationale.

Suppose a man, whom we simply shall refer to as ‘xyz’, develops desire for adultery, as such is characterized by desire that already is agreed to be UnRighteous.

The natural outcome of the UnRighteous Desire?

In order for xyz to commit adultery, and yet not believe he has done something that is wrong, he must arrive at a rationalizing thought, at a reasoning that is contrary, equivalently, contradictory to the reasoning advocated for characterization of adultery as UnRighteous Behavior. In presence of a contradictory reasoning that validates adultery, it is straightforward that the contradictory reasoning can be characterized as the UnRighteous Rationale.

If there exists any behaviors that are agreed to be Righteous, they are supported by Righteous Rationales. Rationality demands that deviations from Righteous Behaviors are rooted in…