Amorality

Last updated

Amorality (also known as amoralism) is an absence of, indifference towards, disregard for, or incapacity for morality. [1] [2] [3] Some simply refer to it as a case of being neither moral nor immoral. [4] Amoral should not be confused with immoral , which refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong. [5]

Contents

Morality and amorality in humans and other animals is a subject of dispute among scientists and philosophers. If morality is intrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings either do not exist or are only deficiently human, [6] a condition sometimes described as moral idiocy or anti-social behavior disorder. On the other hand, if morality is extrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings can both exist and be fully human, and as such be amoral by default. Human capabilities may be thought of as amoral in that they can be used for either constructive or destructive purposes, i.e., for good or for ill. [7]

There is a position which claims that amorality is just another form of morality or a concept that is close to it, citing moral naturalism, moral constructivism, moral relativism, and moral fictionalism as constructs that resemble key aspects of amorality. [8]

Inanimate objects

One may consider any entity that is not sapient amoral. For example, a rock may be used (by rational agents) for good or bad purposes, but the rock itself is neither good nor bad. In ontological philosophy, the ancient gnostic concept that the material world was inherently evil applied morality to existence itself and was a point of concern in early Christianity in the form of Docetism, as it opposed the notion that creation is good, as stated in The Book of Genesis. [9] In modern science, however, the matter of the universe is often observed amorally for objective purposes.

Corporations are thought by some to be amoral entities. [10] [11] [12] [13] This can refer to the "ethical numbness" of these organizations' executives and managers, especially when approached from the view that corporations can be considered moral agents as well as a kind of legal person. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

The argument from morality is an argument for the existence of God. Arguments from morality tend to be based on moral normativity or moral order. Arguments from moral normativity observe some aspect of morality and argue that God is the best or only explanation for this, concluding that God must exist. Arguments from moral order are based on the asserted need for moral order to exist in the universe. They claim that, for this moral order to exist, God must exist to support it. The argument from morality is noteworthy in that one cannot evaluate the soundness of the argument without attending to almost every important philosophical issue in meta-ethics.

In ethical philosophy, ethical egoism is the normative position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical.

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy, it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right. Its main branches include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.

In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is, in some sense, to maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts. For instance, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the capacity of actions or objects to produce benefits, such as pleasure, happiness, and good, or to prevent harm, such as pain and unhappiness, to those affected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Morality</span> Differentiation between right and wrong

Morality is the categorization of intentions, decisions and actions into those that are proper, or right, and those that are improper, or wrong. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that is understood to be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness", "appropriateness" or "rightness".

Immorality is the violation of moral laws, norms or standards. It refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong. Immorality is normally applied to people or actions, or in a broader sense, it can be applied to groups or corporate bodies, and works of art.

<i>Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals</i> Philosophical tract by Immanuel Kant

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the first of Immanuel Kant's mature works on moral philosophy and the first of his trilogy of major works on ethics alongside the Critique of Practical Reason and The Metaphysics of Morals. It remains one of the most influential in the field. Kant conceives his investigation as a work of foundational ethics—one that clears the ground for future research by explaining the core concepts and principles of moral theory, and showing that they are normative for rational agents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Divine command theory</span> Meta-ethical theory of morality

Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by God's commands and that for a person to be moral he is to follow God's commands. Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality.

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Is–ought problem</span> Philosophical problem articulated by David Hume

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements, and that it is not obvious how one can coherently transition from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones.

Joel Feinberg was an American political and legal philosopher. He is known for his work in the fields of ethics, action theory, philosophy of law, and political philosophy as well as individual rights and the authority of the state. Feinberg was one of the most influential figures in American jurisprudence of the last fifty years.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and theology. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology and ontology and the theory of value.

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral choices based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong and that morality does not exist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Finnis</span> Australian legal scholar and philosopher

John Mitchell Finnis is an Australian legal philosopher and jurist specializing in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. He is an original interpreter of Aristotle and Aquinas, and counts Germain Grisez as a major influence and collaborator. He has made contributions to epistemology, metaphysics, and moral philosophy.

A maxim is a moral rule or principle, which can be considered dependent on one's philosophy. A maxim is often pedagogical and motivates specific actions. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines it as:

Generally any simple and memorable rule or guide for living; for example, 'neither a borrower nor a lender be'. Tennyson speaks of 'a little hoard of maxims preaching down a daughter's heart, and maxims have generally been associated with a 'folksy' or 'copy-book' approach to morality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Humanism</span> Philosophical school of thought

Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kantian ethics</span> Ethical theory of Immanuel Kant

Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant that is based on the notion that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." It is also associated with the idea that "it is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will." The theory was developed in the context of Enlightenment rationalism. It states that an action can only be moral if it is motivated by a sense of duty, and its maxim may be rationally willed a universal, objective law.

Radical evil is a phrase used by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, one representing the Christian term, radix malorum. Kant believed that human beings naturally have a tendency to be evil. He explains radical evil as corruption that entirely takes over a human being and leads to desires acting against the universal moral law. The outcome of one's natural tendency, or innate propensity, towards evil are actions or "deeds" that subordinate the moral law. According to Kant, these actions oppose universally moral maxims and display self-love and self conceit. By many authors, Kant's concept of radical evil is seen as a paradox and inconsistent through his development of moral theories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good and evil</span> Philosophical dichotomy

In philosophy, religion, and psychology, "good and evil" is a common dichotomy. In religions with Manichaean and Abrahamic influence, evil is perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.

References

  1. ↑ Johnstone, Megan-Jane (2008). Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 102–103. ISBN   978-0-7295-3873-2.
  2. ↑ Superson, Anita (2009). The Moral Skeptic. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–159. ISBN   978-0-19-537662-3.
  3. ↑ "Amorality". Dictionary.com. Archived from the original on 29 July 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
  4. ↑ Cromwell, Michael (2002). The Anti-Dictionary: A Selected List of Words Being Forced from the Modern Lexicon. New York: Writers Club Press. p. 3. ISBN   978-0595224173.
  5. ↑ New School Dictionary. Collins. 1999. p. 24. ISBN   0 00 472238-8.
  6. ↑ Lewis, Clive Staples (2010). Abolition of Man. Lits. p. 60. ISBN   978-1609421472.
  7. ↑ Smith, M. K., Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences and education, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, updated 19 October 2019, accessed 8 September 2021
  8. ↑ Marks, Joel (2013). Ethics Without Morals: In Defence of Amorality. New York: Routledge. p. 57. ISBN   9780415635561.
  9. ↑ Ignatius of Antioch (1885). Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James; Coxe, A. Cleveland; Knight, Kevin (eds.). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. Vol. 1. Christian Literature Publishing.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  10. ↑ Hazelton, James; Ken Cussen (2005). "The Amorality of Public Corporations". Essays in Philosophy. 6 (2): 366–384. doi:10.5840/eip2005624.
  11. ↑ Quigley, William (2003–2004). "Catholic Social Thought and the Amorality of Large Corporations: Time to Abolish Corporate Personhood" (PDF). Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law: 109–134. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-09-05. Retrieved 2012-12-17.
  12. ↑ Stephens, Beth (2012). "The Amorality of Profit: Transnational Corporations and Human Rights" (PDF). Berkeley Journal of International Law. 20 (1). Retrieved 2012-12-17.
  13. ↑ Donaldson, Thomas (1982). Corporations and morality . Prentice-Hall. pp.  78. ISBN   978-0-13-177014-0.
  14. ↑ Wells, Celia (2001). Corporations and Criminal Responsibility, Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 84. ISBN   978-0198267935.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.