Amorality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (August 2008)

This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (August 2008)

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)

Amorality is the type of existence in which the concept of morality (or right and wrong) is invalid. For example, a rock which falls on a person is amoral. It is neither right nor wrong, and one cannot reasonably praise or blame the rock, as the rock does not have any moral concepts. "Amoralism" may also refer to the belief that the concepts of moral right and wrong do not have meaning, or to the absence of a belief in the absolute existence of any moral law, particularly with reference to human life. Existentialist philosophers often need to confront the possibility that their philosophies are amoralist, because of claims like Sartre's, that we invent meaning.

Amorality is distinct from immorality, although in common use the terms "amoral" and "immoral" are often conflated. An amoral person denies the existence of morality, whereas an immoral person believes in the existence of morality but chooses not to recognize it as binding or intentionally defies it. An immoral person who violates a certain moral code may still believe in the underlying truth of that moral code.

Amoral persons may deny the existence or relevance of morality as a matter of philosophy, or may not possess ethical concepts at all as a result of upbringing (e.g. antisocial personality disorder). The former may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative would require. Making this pronouncement expresses the personal preference of the speaker, or informs about the way he is going to act. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. Such principled amoralism is arguably present in the philosophy of Max Stirner, philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche^[1] ( Thomas Hobbes, Daniel Quinn, Richard Garner, and to a degree the Marquis de Sade.

Immoral behavior, on the other hand, consciously or even actively violates a code of morality, rather than being irrelevant to morality. A thief may not deny that stealing is immoral, but may attempt to deflect the blame or offer excuses in order to justify his actions. Essentially, immoral individuals believe that certain things are wrong, but disregard this information, possibly resulting in feelings of guilt.

[edit] References