Talk:Amorality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Immoral vs Amoral
Recently people have been making distinctions between amoral and immoral as if they are mutually exclusive terms, when this in fact not the case. Usually this comes from a result of misunderstanding immoral and not from misunderstanding amoral. When it comes to the information about amorallity, this article is perfectly fine. However, its distinctiions between amoral and immoral are inadequate. Immorality cannot just simply be labeled amorality because the person claims to not believe in good or evil. Often, I find that one would take the term amoral which implies an innoccence (which it should) over the term immoral when that is not the case. Let's start by looking at various definitions of immoral:
(I reformatted the definitions into a more logical useful manner for this page)
1: Contrary to established moral principles;
2: violating principles of right and wrong;
3: not adhering to ethical or moral principles;
4: morally unprincipled;
5: characterized by wickedness or immorality;
6: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good;
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
If the American Heritage Dictionary is not acceptable, how about using the Oxford dictionary which (in my opinion) does the best of tracing the origin of words and thus more credible.
The opposite of moral; not moral.
1. Not consistent with, or not conforming to, moral law or requirement; opposed to or violating morality; morally evil or impure; unprincipled, vicious, dissolute. (Of persons, things, actions, etc.)
{dag}2. Not having a moral nature or character; non-moral. Obs. rare.
B. n. (nonce-uses, in opposition to moral n.: see quots.)
Hence i{sm}mmoralness, immorality.
Excuse me for not using proper citation but I wish only to discuss and point authors into the right direction when it comes to research. I am not capable enough to rewrite, replace, or edit this article. instead, i rather bring up a point which may be considered for this article (especially since there is no immorality article as it is just assumed within the morality article).
Anyway, back to the discussion. First and foremost that amoral does not belong into the same classification as moral and immoral. The terms immoral and amoral are negatives of different definitions/usages of the word moral. Immoral is the negative of the definition of moral which deals with things being good/moral. Amoral is the negative of the definition of moral which deals with whether or not something is good or bad. Moral is a word full of meaning and distinctions need to be made. Morality first refers to the distinction as things as either good or bad. Basically, determining something immoral falls under the discusiion of morality even though immoral is a negative of moral. Morality can have a broad definition that deals with the distinction between right and wrong while not actually giving a preference for either one. When it comes to this definition of morality, amorality is the negative. Amoral does not say something is good, bad or even niether. Amoral says that it is beyond this dinstinction or rather, morality cannot be applied to it. The color of an object can be termed amoral as there is no good or evil to it, though such a declaration is redundant due to how obvious it is. A person can in fact be amoral. This merely means that they have no conception of right or wrong, whcih the author does a good job describing. However, an amoral person can still act in moral and immoral ways. An amoral person can still be moral and immoral. The lact of understanding of morals does not prevent a person from acting for or against them.
The second definition of moral is where it takes a distinction from its broad definition. Where morality can be refering to the defining of good and evil, morality can also refer to just the good aspect. In this case, immoral is the negative of moral. An act can be described first as moral and amoral where it is brought into question whether or not right and wrong can be even applied to it. If deemed to fall under the juristiction of morality, the action can then be labeled moral or immoral. Similar to how moral has two definitions, amoral does as well. Actually, there is just the special case of people that should be taken into account. Amoral first makes the distinction as to whether or not morality can be applied to something. In the case of people it can further and state whether or not they themselves are moral or amoral by their understanding of morality. If the concept of morality eludes them, then they are amoral. However, they are still under the jurisdiction of morality as their actions and they themselves can still be called moral or immoral. Not realizing that an action is wrong does not make it any less immoral. A person who is amoral in nature can also be either moral or immoral and certainly their actions can be moral and immoral as well. Preceding comment by 147.226.199.3.
[edit] Biased Definition of Amorality
I just want to make a note here that I added a parenthetical section, with an alternate definition of amorality. I feel that the first definition, in saying that amorality means a "quality of having no concept of right or wrong," implies an absolutist bias that "right and wrong" exist, which some amoralists would contest by definition of their amoral belief system. Such a definition subtly and falsely pushes amoralists into the category of immorality, by implying the existence of morality and the amoralist's immoral failure to acknowledge such a moral system.
To clarify: Atheists lack belief in any gods or deities. While you could say an atheist is someone with "the quality of having no concept of God or gods," such a definition would sound terribly biased, from the theist viewpoint. It would be like saying there is a God, but atheists simply have no concept of him. I feel the definition left here before my edition was similarly biased, from the moralist viewpoint.
Also note: I cannot verify my new definition with an online source. However, I do have a B.A. in English & Philosophy from the University of Hartford, and can bring professors and other experts into the discussion if requested.
Chris Dubey 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
