Okay, here’s the thing. Discipline is a term reserved, I feel, for those who lack good judgement. When you make a broad and sweeping generalization of “undisciplined” you have to specify what behavior you are referencing. 

Obviously Covey from Kushand Wisdom is referring to personal discipline. The question remains though; what particular standard of morals is he referring to? Being a slave to your moods can manifest some particularly interesting creations.

I would dare to ask if Van Gogh hadn’t been a slave to his mood, would he have produced “starry night?” If Benjamin Franklin hadn’t been a slave to his passion, would electricity have been invented when it was? 

Anything in the extreme and done too much can possibly be bad for you. I emphasize possibly. I would caution using the word slave as well. If something possesses you to the point that you are not your own person, yes that’s not good. Yet if something were to consume you and bring forth the best side of you then I would argue, by all means, that you should subject yourself to it. 

What this should say is that someone with no moral code rather than the undisciplined are slaves. Really it shouldn’t say slaves either. Pure and simple. So pay no mind to this. Have a passion. Have things that motivate you and give you an appetite to achieve a better version of yourself. 

The morally undisciplined are subject to randomness. Covet could have said that and been more accurate as well as more descriptive of what this nonsense is depicting.