Moral, Immoral Or Amoral

[INTrPosr]

Based on the denotations of the words, which would you consider best fits you?

[mgb]

Lately, amoral. I have really been trying not to make those types of distinctions between people and the things they do. No one can be completely moral or immoral, they will probably be shades of both.

[Vagabond]

Morals are subjective. You are immoral when you go against your own subjective sense of morality, but I don't see how morals could be standard rules that would apply to everyone.

[INTrPosr]

Since I live and work with mostly SJs, I realize quickly that my views different from theirs. A co-worker and my supervisor were arguing with me on how to proceed with a case. Since the case is based on the principles of a law, they continued to make moral arguments which went contrary to the law. I told them that they were attempting to create law, wherein they said it was up for interpretation. Needless to say, I am grounded and in my office with the door closed.

[INTrPosr]

Morals are subjective. You are immoral when you go against your own subjective sense of morality, but I don't see how morals could be standard rules that would apply to everyone.
So, are you saying that morals are relatvie Vag? In that case, I think you would be amoral, in that it does not matter or for whatever reasons cannot be judged objectively.

[Vagabond]

Yeah, I voted for amoral. I forgot to say it, lol.

[mgb]

Since I live and work with mostly SJs, I realize quickly that my views different from theirs. A co-worker and my supervisor were arguing with me on how to proceed with a case. Since the case is based on the principles of a law, they continued to make moral arguments which went contrary to the law. I told them that they were attempting to create law, wherein they said it was up for interpretation. Needless to say, I am grounded and in my office with the door closed.

Maybe just tell them that your logic is inherently better than theirs :)

That you should clear things up.

[INTrPosr]

Maybe just tell them that your logic is inherently better than theirs :)That you should clear things up.For God-sake mgbradsh, I'm INTP..... I have mastered the art of non-veral communication with these people. Why verbalize my disapproval when I can give them a look, whereas when I leave the room all I hear from them is:banghead:?

[booyalab]

I have several qualms with people who say all morality is relative.
1. In order for something to be relative, you need a constant. We may adapt to and philosophize about moral standards in different ways, but there are fundamental similarities in the way we perceive morality and similarities in the way people identify moral situations. So it can't possibly be all relative!
2. Let's say, through some great diversion from logic, all morality is all relative. If this was true, there would be no over-representation of particular definitions of morality. For instance: In this poll, someone other than me would choose "Immoral" without everyone shrugging it off as being a joke or them being a little nuts. If morality is all relative you wouldn't find people in remote tribes caring about the same things: like courage or honesty. You'd find just as many people through out history who find it honorable to rape and kill your family members while burning down the village as you find those who think those acts are atrocious. You might attribute this to pragmatism, but no one ever said there can't be practical reasons for having certain moral stances. To attribute these things to pragmatism would also make pragmatism the constant in morality. Can't be all relative.
3. If morality is indeed relative, there wouldn't be so much justifications for when people go outside the mainstream morality. People don't USUALLY just say: "Screw good and bad, I'll have sex with a tree if i want to." They say "The tree and I love each other very much, wouldn't you agree that love is the most important thing?" or "You people with normal human relationships have problems too, dont tell me my tree-loving will ruin the sanctity of romantic relationships" If morality is as arbitrary as your favorite color there would be no attempt to change the other guy's impression of what you believe.

[Johnny]

In order for something to be relative, you need a constant.I think I see your point, but I think you may be asking for more than what you need. All that something needs to be relative is a relationship to my understanding...which may or may not be constant. It could be God, Allah, Buddha, pragmatism, money, procreation, extermination, or anything else that is used to assist in clarifying right and wrong behavior.

If you want to make morality constant, well, then you need a constant to justify its inflexibility.

[booyalab]

I think I see your point, but I think you may be asking for more than what you need. All that something needs to be relative is a relationship to my understanding...which may or may not be constant. It could be God, Allah, Buddha, pragmatism, money, procreation, extermination, or anything else that is used to assist in clarifying right and wrong behavior.

If you want to make morality constant, well, then you need a constant to justify its inflexibility.

The burden is on those who claim it is relative (either that or they have to admit it's illogical), I just don't feel that people who say all morality is relative are satisfactorily acknowledging or providing ANY constant whatsoever. The implications are that morality is as subjective a favorite color. Since there are no great arguments or laws over colors, it's obvious that is not the case.

Of course I realize that colors aren't even relative (they're not relative because we don't know why people like the colors they like.....something has to be relative to something else!), but I think if it were
logically possible for something to be entirely relative to...itself it would be as devoid of meaning as what people's favorite colors are.

[booyalab]

Yes, there is a relationship between the person and their belief, or whatever.....but in this poll and in all discussions of morality, amorality is treated as an antithesis to morality. Although even someone who thinks moral standards should be consistent and pure will still admit there's a relationship between them and their beliefs or actions. So that description of amorality is lacking, when it is meant to be a counterpoint for morality.

[SheepDog]

The burden is on those who claim it is relative (either that or they have to admit it's illogical), I just don't feel that people who say all morality is relative are satisfactorily acknowledging or providing ANY constant whatsoever. The implications are that morality is as subjective a favorite color. Since there are no great arguments or laws over colors, it's obvious that is not the case.

I disagree. The burden is on anyone that would say their morals are universal, and as such apply to me. In this case, the burden is on you to say that your morals pertain to me in any way.

Whether or not your view of them or my view of them correlate have nothing to do whatsoever with the credibility of saying that morals are universal as oppose to relative. If most people like blue (or red, or orange, or fuschia), that does not make blue the universal color, preferred color, or say anything at all about the relative value of blue.

[booyalab]

I disagree. The burden is on anyone that would say their morals are universal, and as such apply to me. In this case, the burden is on you to say that your morals pertain to me in any way.

Whether or not your view of them or my view of them correlate have nothing to do whatsoever with the credibility of saying that morals are universal as oppose to relative. If most people like blue (or red, or orange, or fuschia), that does not make blue the universal color, preferred color, or say anything at all about the relative value of blue.

I'm not arguing FOR the specifics of morality, I'm saying that something cannot be relative to itself. If someone gives a contradiction, it's their job to reconcile the 2 contradicting components or modify it in some way. I'm intrapolating about amorality here! and how well it explains reality as a framework.....not how well morality explains reality...my problems with how amorality relates to reality just happened to lead in the direction of there being some constant. I don't have to know the details of that constant, just like you can know light ihas a constant without knowing the exact speed it travels when constant.

I have no idea what your color rant has to do with my analogy. I guess you're making your own analogy using mine. In which case, your analogy doesn't fit that which you are trying to illustrate because if most people liked blue (which they dont...because there's no apparent order ) that would definitely point to some correlation . So you inadvertently shot yourself in the foot :/

[SheepDog]

So what I read is that you think that for morality to be relative, it has to be relative to something, and that cannot be arbitrary. It seems to me that your entire set of points hinge on this.

I'm saying I disagree with this point. You're making the assertion, then saying that anyone who disagrees must prove why they're right. I say that you haven't proven your assertion to me. And I don't agree that I owe you an explanation for disagreeing with your assertion.

If I have misread your discussion here, please clarify.

[SheepDog]

I have no idea what your color rant has to do with my analogy. I guess you're making your own analogy using mine. In which case, your analogy doesn't fit that which you are trying to illustrate because if most people liked blue (which they dont...because there's no apparent order ) that would definitely point to some correlation . So you inadvertently shot yourself in the foot :/
Sorry if that seemed like a non-sequitor. When you said (above),
"We may adapt to and philosophize about moral standards in different ways, but there are fundamental similarities in the way we perceive morality and similarities in the way people identify moral situations. So it can't possibly be all relative!",
I read this to say that you believe a correlation of similar moral convictions among different people somehow adds credibility to them or proves that they are based on the same non-relative principles. It doesn't.

[mgb]

I'm not arguing FOR the specifics of morality, I'm saying that something cannot be relative to itself. If someone gives a contradiction, it's their job to reconcile the 2 contradicting components or modify it in some way. I'm intrapolating about amorality here! and how well it explains reality as a framework.....not how well morality explains reality...my problems with how amorality relates to reality just happened to lead in the direction of there being some constant. I don't have to know the details of that constant, just like you can know light ihas a constant without knowing the exact speed it travels when constant.

I have no idea what your color rant has to do with my analogy. I guess you're making your own analogy using mine. In which case, your analogy doesn't fit that which you are trying to illustrate because if most people liked blue (which they dont...because there's no apparent order ) that would definitely point to some correlation . So you inadvertently shot yourself in the foot :/


Would Jesus not be the example of the moral extreme? I mean, from what people know wasn't he pretty much perfect?

So to call yourself moral, couldn't you just be comparing yourself to Jesus?

What you should be looking for is the fulcrum between morality and immorality. Its there that people decided if they are more moral or more immoral. That is how a person will decide if they are moral or not. They could even look at it scientifically and say they have done 3 moral acts and 2 immoral acts so therefore they must be moral.

[mgb]

I'm not arguing FOR the specifics of morality, I'm saying that something cannot be relative to itself. If someone gives a contradiction, it's their job to reconcile the 2 contradicting components or modify it in some way. I'm intrapolating about amorality here! and how well it explains reality as a framework.....not how well morality explains reality...my problems with how amorality relates to reality just happened to lead in the direction of there being some constant. I don't have to know the details of that constant, just like you can know light ihas a constant without knowing the exact speed it travels when constant.

I have no idea what your color rant has to do with my analogy. I guess you're making your own analogy using mine. In which case, your analogy doesn't fit that which you are trying to illustrate because if most people liked blue (which they dont...because there's no apparent order ) that would definitely point to some correlation . So you inadvertently shot yourself in the foot :/

To that end you cannot insert amorality on the same scale as morality and immorality because amorality is the idea that the scale is not worth using.

[MacGuffin]

Wow, amoral is in the lead nearly double. I did not realize I was on a forum with a bunch of sociopaths.

[SensEye]

I voted amoral but I am not really clear on what Booyalab is after. In reality, I have a moral code I adhere to quite rigorously. However, it is my own internal moral code developed based on a number of principles (logic, societal indoctrination, etc.), and is completely subjective. So to an outsider, I may appear amoral. Maybe I should have voted moral, but I don't believe there is a moral absolute.

[mgb]

The burden is on those who claim it is relative (either that or they have to admit it's illogical), I just don't feel that people who say all morality is relative are satisfactorily acknowledging or providing ANY constant whatsoever. The implications are that morality is as subjective a favorite color. Since there are no great arguments or laws over colors, it's obvious that is not the case.

Of course I realize that colors aren't even relative (they're not relative because we don't know why people like the colors they like.....something has to be relative to something else!), but I think if it were
logically possible for something to be entirely relative to...itself it would be as devoid of meaning as what people's favorite colors are.

Sorry, I keep reading back.

I disagree because I think that society does provide some framework to what is moral or not but it is up to each person to truly decide what is moral for themselves. If your idea of morality is pretty far from the framework society has provided than you might be immoral but you made that choice.

And yes, morality does change from society to society but I am sure you can find certain things from each society that are similar throughout human history. The seven deadly sins are probably a good place to start.

[MacGuffin]

Saying that morals are not absolute does not make you amoral.

I'm beginning to think people do not understand the words.

[SheepDog]

Saying that morals are not absolute does not make you amoral.

I'm beginning to think people do not understand the words.
I agree that semantics are a big part of this discussion.

They're a big part of MOST discussions, in my experience.

[MacGuffin]

I agree that semantics are a big part of this discussion.

They're a big part of MOST discussions, in my experience.

Right.

View morality as a sliding scale. One end is moral, the other is immoral. How you define moral/immoral is irrelevant. A truly amoral person rejects the idea of a scale at all. Moral and immoral are just nonsensical terms to them.

In other words, an amoral person sees no moral difference between using a letter opener to open a letter, and jabbing it into someone's eyesocket.

[INTrPosr]

The burden is on those who claim it is relative (either that or they have to admit it's illogical), I just don't feel that people who say all morality is relative are satisfactorily acknowledging or providing ANY constant whatsoever. The implications are that morality is as subjective a favorite color. Since there are no great arguments or laws over colors, it's obvious that is not the case.
Booylab, since you are probably premising your statements on what I originally stated, allow me to conote what I perceive as morality being relative. Morality, like anything is based on one's perception. Thus there is no constant accept with the eye of the beholder. Where you referenced to particular tribal beliefs, in my opinion that would be less of a moral issue and cultural expectations. My family and community expect much of moi, however, the expectations are not based on moral terpitude. Whether I choose to be moral (having an affair) is not the same as whether I choose to break a law (committing murder).

[Johnny]

...I just don't feel that people who say all morality is relative are satisfactorily acknowledging or providing ANY constant whatsoever. The implications are that morality is as subjective a favorite color. Since there are no great arguments or laws over colors, it's obvious that is not the case.Morality is about right and wrong behavior and nothing else...and like MacVader says, it is not necessary for the assessment of what is right and wrong behavior to be the same for all people in order to determine that one's behavior is either is moral or immoral. It just depends on the criteria you adopt for what is right and wrong...and that criteria can come from just about anywhere you can imagine... Like I said, all you need is a relationship - you own behavior on one end, the list of right and wrong behavior on the other end. Your confusion is in the need to justify the criteria for moral behavior in order to call it moral, but that's a separate issue.

To borrow your color example, we use the frequency range to categorize the different colors visible light can reveal. Red is around 450 THz, while Blue is around 650 THz. My favorite between the two is blue, but I don't also require that everyone choose blue as their favorite to confirm that it is my favorite. I can justify my favorite color through other reasons...

The words "right" and "wrong" are not words that are offered much flexibility, and so if your confusion remains I can understand it. Morality, right and wrong, and religion are words that get used together often, and they are used most often in order to exercise control.

[jimkopelli]

Definitely as amoral as a cat.

[INTrPosr]

I voted amoral but I am not really clear on what Booyalab is after. In reality, I have a moral code I adhere to quite rigorously. However, it is my own internal moral code developed based on a number of principles (logic, societal indoctrination, etc.), and is completely subjective. So to an outsider, I may appear amoral. Maybe I should have voted moral, but I don't believe there is a moral absolute.
SensEye you bring up a valid point that makes me question whether some may be using morals, in replace of values. The USA supposedly did during the election. Are morals different than values? Do one having strong values equate to someone being highly principled. Is there a difference? In that case, I still agree with you that someone may consider me amoral because my principles that I live by, differ from their values. Too confusing.:wacko:

[Hypnos]

People don't know English.

Morality is a doctrine of behavior.

Immorality is a rejection of a particular doctrine of behavior.

Amorality is the belief that there is no _justifiable_ doctrine of behavior. I am amoral because I do not allow others or cultural norms to dictate what I value or disvalue in behavior, but rather I choose to be directed by my own conscience, or not at all.

[MacGuffin]

I have a hypothetical for those that say they are amoral.

You are walking down a street and come upon a child eating ice cream. You want some ice cream. You have no money to buy it, no place nearby to steal or make it, and the child will not give it to you. If you kill the child and take the ice cream, you will never be caught or punished for this act.

Do you kill the child and take the ice cream? If so, why? If not, why not?

[SheepDog]

Couldn't there be other reasons besides moral ones for not taking the ice cream? Empathy comes to mind, and I tend to think that it exists outside of morals.

[MacGuffin]

Couldn't there be other reasons besides moral ones for not taking the ice cream? Empathy comes to mind, and I tend to think that it exists outside of morals.

There may be reasons, but I don't think it is empathy. Just because you empathize with someone doesn't mean you won't still kill them.

[mgb]

There may be reasons, but I don't think it is empathy. Just because you empathize with someone doesn't mean you won't still kill them.

Why kill the kid when you can just push him over and take it?

What if that kid was sitting there eating ice cream after killing your whole family for enough cash to buy some ice cream? Then is it ok? What is the role of punishment in society? Even if the kid hadn't killed your family if there is no punishment to deter from crime why wouldn't someone commit crime? And how does punishment work into morality? How could a group of people decided that an eye is worth an eye?

That's a whole paragraph of questions, wow.

Really though, if I could change my vote from amoral to moral I would.

[MacGuffin]

Why kill the kid when you can just push him over and take it?

What if that kid was sitting there eating ice cream after killing your whole family for enough cash to buy some ice cream? Then is it ok? What is the role of punishment in society? Even if the kid hadn't killed your family if there is no punishment to deter from crime why wouldn't someone commit crime? And how does punishment work into morality? How could a group of people decided that an eye is worth an eye?

That's a whole paragraph of questions, wow.

Really though, if I could change my vote from amoral to moral I would.

As to your first question, let's say that you don't want to be punished for theft/assualt after the child tells on you. You want ice cream, and the quickest and easiest way is to take it from the child and eliminate the child as a threat to you in the future.

As to the other questions, they are irrelevant by changing the situation.

[Vagabond]

To me, the constant would be my personal view of what is "moral", right or wrong etc. I am immoral if I don't follow my own personal standards of morality. However, even if by following my personal idea of morality I am moral in my view, I might still be immoral as far as society is concerned, if my idea of morality and the social standards of morality are different. Then again, even if my personal morals and the social ones are similar, and I am considered as moral in both cases, comparing to the moral standards of a different society (different time or place) might still label me as immoral. Etc, I could go on and on. It all depends on what you compare with really, so overall morality is a relative idea. Not relative to itself though, relative as to what you chose to put on the other side of the scales to compare with.

[mgb]

As to your first question, let's say that you don't want to be punished for theft/assualt after the child tells on you. You want ice cream, and the quickest and easiest way is to take it from the child and eliminate the child as a threat to you in the future.

As to the other questions, they are irrelevant by changing the situation.

I guess I was wondering if its morality or fear of punishment that would prevent someone from committing a crime. I think most crimes are committed when people feel they won't get caught. But not getting caught can't be their only motivation to commit crimes, say for instance they are hungry or even politically motivated.

Is it stealing if you are doing it to feed your starving family? Yes by definition. Does that make it immoral?

As far as killing, what about soldiers? Are they immoral or is it the people giving the orders?

I agree with you that killing a kid for ice cream is immoral (barring some sort of disease that would render someone unable to decifer the consequences of their actions) but it raises a larger issue of when it is ok to kill and steal? You used a very black and white example but I think there are some grey areas to look at.

[SheepDog]

There may be reasons, but I don't think it is empathy. Just because you empathize with someone doesn't mean you won't still kill them.
Empathy doesn't guarantee that you won't kill them, but it can still be a reason.

This is starting to strike me as a self-defining hypothetical.

[Vagabond]

I have a hypothetical for those that say they are amoral.

You are walking down a street and come upon a child eating ice cream. You want some ice cream. You have no money to buy it, no place nearby to steal or make it, and the child will not give it to you. If you kill the child and take the ice cream, you will never be caught or punished for this act.

Do you kill the child and take the ice cream? If so, why? If not, why not? No. That would make me immoral by my own standards of morality. If my personal morals were different, if my personal idea was that there was nothing wrong with it, I would do it even if by the social standards I would be considered as immoral. I would not be immoral by my own standards though.

[Werdna]

If it was your icecream, would you want someone to steal it? If no, then don't steal it. It's the inverse of the golden rule, "don't do towards others what you don't want them to do unto you", or something. This is usually my definition of morality...
I voted moral, and I don't think it is relevant whether I get punished or discovered in this case. It is not the person I want to be and I wouldn't do it. Besides, it's possible that killing a child would do harm to my own psyche, so I may still be punished that way.

[MacGuffin]

I guess I was wondering if its morality or fear of punishment that would prevent someone from committing a crime. I think most crimes are committed when people feel they won't get caught. But not getting caught can't be their only motivation to commit crimes, say for instance they are hungry or even politically motivated.

Is it stealing if you are doing it to feed your starving family? Yes by definition. Does that make it immoral?

As far as killing, what about soldiers? Are they immoral or is it the people giving the orders?

I agree with you that killing a kid for ice cream is immoral (barring some sort of disease that would render someone unable to decifer the consequences of their actions) but it raises a larger issue of when it is ok to kill and steal? You used a very black and white example but I think there are some grey areas to look at.

There are certainly grey (gray) areas. But of course, now we are talking about morality.

You can have your own standard of morality, and society can have a different one. That does not make you amoral. Amoral people have no personal standard to compare to society's standard.

[booyalab]

If this relativistic morality was really applied consistently, there would be no sense in even discussing moral issues because every moral code is supposedly equal, even no moral code whatsoever. If my moral standards only apply to me and everyone else's moral standards are just as good and apply to them then if someone wants to kill me or steal my ice cream cone then I would be going against my belief that every moral code is equal by even being offended. I cant even say they're going against their morality because 'we' already decided this is entirely subjective and therefore I can't presume to know their moral code well enough to make any judgements whatsoever

[MacGuffin]

Empathy doesn't guarantee that you won't kill them, but it can still be a reason.

This is starting to strike me as a self-defining hypothetical.

How is it a reason?

It is a self-defining hypothetical. I am trying to determine why an amoral person will not kill the child. Since killing is a course of action no different morally than turning around and walking away from the child - why would an amoral person choose the latter when they want the ice cream?

[Werdna]

If you have some common sense you don't need morality.
If you're too stupid to see that they're the same thing, just stick to the law.

[booyalab]

If you have some common sense you don't need morality.
If you're too stupid to see that they're the same thing, just stick to the law.

you seem to have some personal issues with the word "morality" and the law. Common sense and morality are often interchangeable.

[MacGuffin]

If this relativistic morality was really applied consistently, there would be no sense in even discussing moral issues because every moral code is supposedly equal, even no moral code whatsoever. If my moral standards only apply to me and everyone else's moral standards are just as good and apply to them then if someone wants to kill me or steal my ice cream cone then I would be going against my belief that every moral code is equal by even being offended. I cant even say they're going against their morality because 'we' already decided this is entirely subjective and therefore I can't presume to know their moral code well enough to make any judgements whatsoever


I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

[booyalab]

I'd also say where common sense and morality coincide the most is manifested in law.

[mgb]

Amoral people have no personal standard to compare to society's standard.


I think I realized that halfway through when I was about to say that you had to be diseased (mentally) to say that you are immoral. When the argument is polarized its pretty easy to take the amoral way out. I suppose it boils down to the fact that I have seen kids eating ice cream and my first impulse was not to kill them to get it.

I would like to explore the soldier model more. There seems to be some amorality there, or at least serious temporary moral deterioration.

[booyalab]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

I get this alot. None of the responses I read to what I wrote earlier had anything to do with what I meant. Sometimes it's like when people don't understand me they just reiterate what has been said but they word it differently, like that will convince me of their point. I suppose I should just give up.

[Vagabond]

Maybe we need a definition on "morals". If the term is meant as "what you need to do in order to go to heaven", oh yeah I have none. If it is about what you consider as a reasonably best way of behaviour, it is a totally different thing and, personally, I don't call that "morals". To me the term "morality" means defining rights and wrongs in absolutes, based on what feels right or wrong. In that sense, really, I insist on amoral. I can't comprehend the right/wrong distinction, I have never been able to. Plus, when it comes to deciding, I follow my head and not my heart a lot more often than not. Plus, if I think something is OK for me to do, and if by doing so I don't mess with you, no morals in the world will stop me from doing it.

[booyalab]

I think I realized that halfway through when I was about to say that you had to be diseased (mentally) to say that you are immoral. When the argument is polarized its pretty easy to take the amoral way out. I suppose it boils down to the fact that I have seen kids eating ice cream and my first impulse was not to kill them to get it.

I would like to explore the soldier model more. There seems to be some amorality there, or at least serious temporary moral deterioration.

The net result of amorality is the same as a consistently applied relativistic morality.

[booyalab]

if I think something is OK for me to do, and if by doing so I don't mess with you, no morals in the world will stop me from doing it.

Why don't you need to mess with me? That isn't a necessary consequence of being amoral or 'thinking with your head'.

[Vagabond]

If this relativistic morality was really applied consistently, there would be no sense in even discussing moral issues because every moral code is supposedly equal, even no moral code whatsoever. If my moral standards only apply to me and everyone else's moral standards are just as good and apply to them then if someone wants to kill me or steal my ice cream cone then I would be going against my belief that every moral code is equal by even being offended. I cant even say they're going against their morality because 'we' already decided this is entirely subjective and therefore I can't presume to know their moral code well enough to make any judgements whatsoever Exactly. It is not my morals that get offended if someone steals from me, and I don't label the thief as immoral. By fighting back I don't try to punish him for being immoral, I try to defend myself. I don't mean I will label the thief as moral either; I guess both are somewhat empty words to me.

[MacGuffin]

Maybe we need a definition on "morals". If the term is meant as "what you need to do in order to go to heaven", oh yeah I have none. If it is about what you consider as a reasonably best way of behaviour, it is a totally different thing and, personally, I don't call that "morals". To me the term "morality" means defining rights and wrongs in absolutes, based on what feels right or wrong. In that sense, really, I insist on amoral. I can't comprehend the right/wrong distinction, I have never been able to. Plus, when it comes to deciding, I follow my head and not my heart a lot more often than not. Plus, if I think something is OK for me to do, and if by doing so I don't mess with you, no morals in the world will stop me from doing it.

I'd say you misunderstand morality. You don't need absolutes. There are a lot of grey areas.

You say you cannot comprehend right or wrong. Would you call yourself a sociopath?

[mgb]

If this relativistic morality was really applied consistently, there would be no sense in even discussing moral issues because every moral code is supposedly equal, even no moral code whatsoever. If my moral standards only apply to me and everyone else's moral standards are just as good and apply to them then if someone wants to kill me or steal my ice cream cone then I would be going against my belief that every moral code is equal by even being offended. I cant even say they're going against their morality because 'we' already decided this is entirely subjective and therefore I can't presume to know their moral code well enough to make any judgements whatsoever

I get what you are saying. The world does not exist in a morally relativistic bubble.

So you are saying that there is a consensus by society or at least a society to the moral code that everyone lives by.

How do you reconcile differences between societies? A great example is genital mutilation in say Iran. Its pretty common and socially acceptable there and completely illegal here. If an immagrant father wants this for his daughter is it ok to impose the "consensus" of society on him?

[booyalab]

Vagabond, could you reconcile what you said about not comprehending right or wrong and not wanting to do anything that messes with someone else?

[Werdna]

you seem to have some personal issues with the word "morality" and the law. Common sense and morality are often interchangeable.
Yes, that's sort of what I said. That was just something I came up with and I wondered how people would react to it. Typical INTP thing.

To me, morality means not hurting people. Physically or mentally. I don't believe in absolute morals either, I find it hard to believe any INTP would, I would adapt to the situation at hand. It could be, perhaps not 'moral' but at least 'not immoral' to hurt someone if that would prevent his death, assuming he doesn't want to die. And, of course, what society thinks is completely irrelevant. Perhaps that makes me amoral in some peoples eyes, but I still call it morality.

[Vagabond]

Why don't you need to mess with me? That isn't a necessary consequence of being amoral or 'thinking with your head'. Because it is a give-and-take relationship that applies in the world. If I mess with you, you will probably fight back, because you will need to protect/defend yourself and what you will consider as an invasion of your private space. I don't want you messing with me, lol. ("you" in general, not personally you). If I help setting up a situation where everyone invades each other's private space, I will eventually have my own private space invaded, because this will turn into a normal and "moral" thing to do by more people's standards. I hate intrusion, I hate people messing with me, so I'd do anything against helping to make this a normal thing to do for more people. On the contrary, I would like to help more people seeing it as an "immoral" thing to do, so that I can have less of them stepping on my toes every now and then.

[booyalab]

I get what you are saying. The world does not exist in a morally relativistic bubble.

So you are saying that there is a consensus by society or at least a society to the moral code that everyone lives by.

How do you reconcile differences between societies? A great example is genital mutilation in say Iran. Its pretty common and socially acceptable there and completely illegal here. If an immagrant father wants this for his daughter is it ok to impose the "consensus" of society on him?

I believe that a sense of morality is innate in most people and that parts of it can be enhanced or vanquished by their environment. Obviously the women whose genitals are mutilated in 3rd world countries feel it's wrong but their sense of morality or whatever you want to call it, feels overwhelmed by the greater consensus and they probably would feel too ashamed to stand up for themselves.

[booyalab]

Because it is a give-and-take relationship that applies in the world. If I mess with you, you will probably fight back, because you will need to protect/defend yourself and what you will consider as an invasion of your private space. I don't want you messing with me, lol. ("you" in general, not personally you). If I help setting up a situation where everyone invades each other's private space, I will eventually have my own private space invaded, because this will turn into a normal and "moral" thing to do by more people's standards. I hate intrusion, I hate people messing with me, so I'd do anything against helping to make this a normal thing to do for more people. On the contrary, I would like to help more people seeing it as an "immoral" thing to do, so that I can have less of them stepping on my toes every now and then.

this makes sense

[Vagabond]

You say you cannot comprehend right or wrong. Would you call yourself a sociopath? Not really. Mutual respect so that we can practically all survive in the same space doesn't have to do with rights and wrongs, it has to do with practicality. What is right or wrong depends on who makes the definitions - how is that not relative?

booyalab - that's what I meant, it is a practical matter, not a moral one. Bleh, maybe I am nitpicking and overanalysing, I don't know...

[mgb]

I believe that a sense of morality is innate in most people and that parts of it can be enhanced or vanquished by their environment. Obviously the women whose genitals are mutilated in 3rd world countries feel it's wrong but their sense of morality or whatever you want to call it, feels overwhelmed by the greater consensus and they probably would feel too ashamed to stand up for themselves.

In a way then then society is wrong and not the person.

[booyalab]

Not really. Mutual respect so that we can practically all survive in the same space doesn't have to do with rights and wrongs, it has to do with practicality. What is right or wrong depends on who makes the definitions - how is that not relative?

booyalab - that's what I meant, it is a practical matter, not a moral one. Bleh, maybe I am nitpicking and overanalysing, I don't know...

Like I have said twice before: I don't think pragmatism and morality need to be mutually exclusive. Something that is right can coincidentally be a smart thing to do too.

[Vagabond]

Like I have said twice before: I don't think pragmatism and morality need to be mutually exclusive. Something that is right can coincidentally be a smart thing to do too. No arguments there. I was only explaining why I consider myself amoral, I was not trying to say you are either practical and amoral or impractical and moral.

[MacGuffin]

Not really. Mutual respect so that we can practically all survive in the same space doesn't have to do with rights and wrongs, it has to do with practicality. What is right or wrong depends on who makes the definitions - how is that not relative?

Actually mutal respect is a moral framework. You are not really amoral.

[booyalab]

In a way then then society is wrong and not the person.

I dislike when people talk about society like it's a separate entity from humanity. It's a reflection of ourselves and every tradition started from one or several decisions made by HUMANS. From that point on, people can choose whether they want to follow that tradition. But blaming all problems on a symptom of our collective failures as human beings is a misinterpretation, I think.

[SheepDog]

Wow. An actual discussion.


With regard to empathy, I'll say that a person might choose not to kill the kid because they wouldn't want someone to kill them for something that they have that the other person wants. Maybe that falls under Morals, maybe it doesn't. I didn't want this to be a semantic discussion, but that may be what this is about anyway.

Another reason might be pragmatic. I don't think the world would work very well if we all killed each other for things we want. The species wouldn't do so well, I would argue.

Maybe empathy and pragmatism are underlying principles of morality. If so, then that seems in line booyalab's point about morals being based on something. Of course, that would still have to be different for everyone, because we all have different views of empathy and pragmatism.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is really just a question of "what is morality?"

[MacGuffin]

With regard to empathy, I'll say that a person might choose not to kill the kid because they wouldn't want someone to kill them for something that they have that the other person wants. Maybe that falls under Morals, maybe it doesn't. I didn't want this to be a semantic discussion, but that may be what this is about anyway.

Another reason might be pragmatic. I don't think the world would work very well if we all killed each other for things we want. The species wouldn't do so well, I would argue.

Maybe empathy and pragmatism are underlying principles of morality. If so, then that seems in line booyalab's point about morals being based on something. Of course, that would still have to be different for everyone, because we all have different views of empathy and pragmatism.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is really just a question of "what is morality?"

Yes, it is a determination of morality. I think many people just clicked on the amoral button in the typical INTP, freethinking, you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do, atheist mindset without really thinking things through.

You can build morality based on reason/logic/pragmatism. See Kant's Categorical Imperative.

I don't think people on this forum go through life doing what they want without regard to other people, at least a little bit.

[mgb]

I dislike when people talk about society like it's a separate entity from humanity. It's a reflection of ourselves and every tradition started from one or several decisions made by HUMANS. From that point on, people can choose whether they want to follow that tradition. But blaming a symptom of our collective failures as human beings is a misinterpretation, I think.


Ok, so society is made up of humans? These humans, in order to exist together in society create rules or inherent in the creation of the society are rules (rather than the rules being created). I'm ok with that. If someone later disagrees with the rules they face condemnation and potentially expulsion from society. However, as humans we can change that. But say in the case of genital mutilation they can't change it. They know its wrong but it is ingrained in their tradition. To not do it would be considered to be disobeying your father which is immoral.

I don't see this as a symptom of our collective failures but an abberation. But how does this abberation exist and why is it still allowed to exist?

I guess I would argue that although the world does not exist in the morally relativistic bubble there seem to be pockets of bubbles that exist. Its a flaw/bonus within our own morality that we let them too. I suppose that its these subtle differences that create some form of diversity.

[mgb]

Yes, it is a determination of morality. I think many people just clicked on the amoral button in the typical INTP, freethinking, you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do, atheist mindset without really thinking things through.


I sheepishly agree.

[Werdna]

Wow. An actual discussion.


With regard to empathy, I'll say that a person might choose not to kill the kid because they wouldn't want someone to kill them for something that they have that the other person wants. Maybe that falls under Morals, maybe it doesn't. I didn't want this to be a semantic discussion, but that may be what this is about anyway.

Another reason might be pragmatic. I don't think the world would work very well if we all killed each other for things we want. The species wouldn't do so well, I would argue.

Maybe empathy and pragmatism are underlying principles of morality. If so, then that seems in line booyalab's point about morals being based on something. Of course, that would still have to be different for everyone, because we all have different views of empathy and pragmatism.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is really just a question of "what is morality?"
Hmm. That is why I defined my morality when I answered the question.
But you can also ask 'do you follow any definition of morality or believe in the concept at all?' and if you say no, then you're amoral.
And everybody is immoral in some way in somebodys eyes, probably. Though not too many people would say they are immoral in their own eyes.

[MacGuffin]

However, as humans we can change that. But say in the case of genital mutilation they can't change it. They know its wrong but it is ingrained in their tradition. To not do it would be considered to be disobeying your father which is immoral.

I'd say we can change it.

See: slavery, woman's sufferage, racism, etc.

Things may just change more slowly than we like.

[Johnny]

What is right or wrong depends on who makes the definitions - how is that not relative?I don't quite agree. Morals don't have to be determined by a person. In fact, it's best (especially in booyalab's case) to relate the right/wrong behavior list to something like God or Allah or some other justification that won't be easily influenced by a gunshot or power outage or whatever.

Yes, I know I haven't firmly established such justifications. I blame my type's preferred dominant function.

[SheepDog]

...I know I haven't firmly established such justifications. I blame my type's preferred dominant function.
:lol:

[Werdna]

I don't quite agree. Morals don't have to be determined by a person. In fact, it's best (especially in booyalab's case) to relate the right/wrong behavior list to something like God or Allah or some other justification that won't be easily influenced by a gunshot or power outage or whatever.For those people who do not feel they know what is right or wrong, it's probably better to follow a list than just make something up, yes. I think I said something similar before...
I couldn't do that myself. Too much of a P.

[mgb]

I'd say we can change it.

See: slavery, woman's sufferage, racism, etc.

Things may just change more slowly than we like.

I had a good post...then everything crashed and fell apart...

I wonder if those things are changed.

I'll use slavery since you mentioned it first. I would say the slavery problem in the US is worse now than it was 200 years ago. Slave prices are at an all time low making slaves more "dispensible" than they ever have been.

Of course slavery is illegal in the US. The laws forbid it. But right now in the US there are 100,000 people living in slavery. "There is no "typical" slaveholder. Lawyers, diplomats, landlords, pharmacists, child welfare workers, and teachers have all been prosecuted for involuntary servitude. Age, region, and income level vary greatly as well." http://www.iabolish.com/slavery_today.htm#

I'm picking on the US a bit here, but slavery exists everywhere. The laws forbid it, but there seems to be a gap between what is "right" and what the law allows.

Obviously morality can be legislated but in legislating something are you making it moral? And from there, if enough people in a society are doing something a minority think is immoral (just in general) does that make it immoral or have societies value's changed enough to call that act moral?

[SensEye]

You can build morality based on reason/logic/pragmatism. See Kant's Categorical Imperative.

I've never studied Kant, but I agree 100% with this statement. In fact, I would
propose that most religions agree on basic moral principles
because they are based on these human commonalities rather than divine
inspiration. Religion is probably just a result of trying to formalize the
rules and give them the backing of a "supreme authority". Keeping in mind
that the rule of law as we know it today was much less developed back in
primitive times.

Societies differ in the details, but almost all societies agree on the
basics of right to life, property rights, and personal liberty (although
slavery of outsiders has often been popular). There are many grey areas of
course. Even "Thou shalt not kill." is really "Thou shalt not kill under
normal societal conditions. A number of exceptions shall apply."

The societies that come up with the best pragmatic morals (which
constantly evolve) will be the most successful. First world countries today have
very similar standards.

Even the barbaric seeming practice of female genital mutilation is based on
pragmatism. It is designed as a part of a societal wide practice to deter
female emancipation. However, it is based on flawed logic. Failing to educate and empower women is a huge waste of 50% of your populations human resources. This is
reflected in the standard of living of the societies that practice it.
(If not for the serendipity of oil resources, I suspect all Arab
states would consist of a bunch of backwards ass tribes
scratching a living out of the dust (see Afghanistan)).

[Jkrs]

Moral (I prefer 'ethical', the idea of morality was hijacked by religion some time ago) by my own standards, who-knows-what by all of yours.

[Hypnos]

There may be reasons, but I don't think it is empathy. Just because you empathize with someone doesn't mean you won't still kill them.
That's the only reason I would have, if the child did not amuse me in any other way.

Esp. if the ice cream were cookies-and-cream ... mmmm ...

This is amoral because psychological egoism is not doctrinal, but physiological, like being kicked in the nuts.

[mgb]

That's the only reason I would have, if the child did not amuse me in any other way.

Esp. if the ice cream were cookies-and-cream ... mmmm ...

This is amoral because psychological egoism is not doctrinal, but physiological, like being kicked in the nuts.

Here: Psychological egoism is the view that we are always motivated by self-interest, even in seeming acts of altruism.

I had to look it up, no clue what psychological egoism was.

So its the idea that people do nice things because it makes them feel good and avoid bad things because it will make them feel not good. At least according to wikipedia.

Wikipedia also says, "But very strong arguments can be made from thought experiment to suggest that at least some individuals are very genuinely altruistic." Which suggests that some people actually do good things for the sake of doing good things, not because it makes them feel good. Conversely they may do bad things for the sake of doing bad things. In some cases this may indicate that people are capable of bad acts for the sake of bad acts.

[INTrPosr]

I think there are plenty of examples that we can provide to discern the difference in these three words. Let's take abortion:

A moral person would say that abortion is wrong, no matter what.

An immoral person would continue to have them, for whatever reasons. Maybe those reasons are selfish.

An amoral person would say that it's none of my business what that person does with their body and will have to answer to a higher power in the end (if you believe it exist).

[songbird36]

Aren't morals simply based on the prevailing societal consensus on a particular issue at a particular point in time?

Some (such as incest and murder being wrong) have proven to be particularly enduring and immutable, but consensus values they are nonetheless.

[mgb]

I think there are plenty of examples that we can provide to discern the difference in these three words. Let's take abortion:

A moral person would say that abortion is wrong, no matter what.

An immoral person would continue to have them, for whatever reasons. Maybe those reasons are selfish.

An amoral person would say that it's none of my business what that person does with their body and will have to answer to a higher power in the end (if you believe it exist).

I would have to disagree.

Firstly, you assumptions about abortion can be easily disregarded by calling an abortion an elective medical procedure. You are applying an idea that an abortion is more than just having liposuction. Scientifically speaking, the fetus being vacuumed out of the woman (especially in the early stages) isn't going to resemble much of a human. The prevailing wisdom in the US and generally across the western world is that an abortion isn't more than that. Given that morals are society driven it may be that there is no basis for assuming that an abortion is immoral.

Secondly, since only 50% of the population is eligible to have an abortion (and since you have enlisted abortion as your only moral qualifier) you open up the idea that all men are either moral or amoral. Personally, I have no position on abortion, really I lean towards the idea that I have no right to say whether or not someone has one or not. That doesn't make me immoral since I can't have an abortion and will never be qualified to have one, nor give one for that matter.

Since 50% of the population can have an abortion they are eligible to choose between the moralities. So let's say that a woman has a few choices. Abstain from sex, have protected sex, have unprotected sex. So someone abstains from sex. Fine, no babies (provided they aren't raped). Have protected sex, still not 100%, probably far below 100% really. Have unprotected sex. Taking a risk. Sounds like all methods might produce a baby. Baby is on the way, what do you do? Have the baby and keep it, have the baby and give it away for adoption, or have the baby aborted. Keeping the baby sounds easy enough and keeps you on the moral straight and narrow. What if your significant other walks away during the pregnancy? What if you are in high school? Some stigma there. Things might be great in your life and you wanted to have a baby, super. I think you get the point. I would just argue that there are a lot of reasons to consider having and not having a baby that go beyond selfishness. The adoption system could be brutal on any child for example.

Thirdly, since you are making this such a black and white issue you are failing to consider the exceptions that break the rule. Consider a nine year old, raped by her uncle. Can you call this child immoral because she has an abortion? Obviously, she had no choice and was either forced or manipulated into having sex and is really in no position to have a child, not to mention the harmful psychological and physical effects pregnancy could have on the poor girl.

By your description the little girl in this case would be considered immoral while the uncle would not.

So, I think you are wrong in concluding that a moral person would agree that abortion is wrong and that an immoral person would continue to have them. This issue is far more complex than you have presented it here.

[SheepDog]

It seems to me that the morality of abortion applies to protecting the life of the fetus, not the act which created it. If you oppose abortion on moral grounds, then how could you provide exceptions based on the circumstances of conception?

[MacGuffin]

BTW, who voted immoral?

[Johnny]

I think Vaga did, maybe in misunderstanding or to faciliate illustrating a deeper point.

[hemanthraz]

Consider something like gambling, i never could figure out why someone would say its immoral, according to me
1. Noone coerces you into gambling [unless its a bad film]
2. you are not hurting anyone
This is not a statement, its a question.

for me,
Moral - Accepting and following the ideas of our environment as a means of deciding between right and wrong.[a jihadi terrorist is a moral person in his environ]

Immoral - Knowing and accepting the ideas and values of our environment and going against them for assorted reasons. [a thief stealing food when hes really hungry]

Amoral- Using our own standars for judging right and wrong [sticking to them or not is a different issue]

btw i voted amoral

[Vagabond]

I think Vaga did, maybe in misunderstanding or to faciliate illustrating a deeper point. Like I said, I voted 'amoral'. My english may be bad, but this much I understand.

[Werdna]

Consider something like gambling, i never could figure out why someone would say its immoral, according to me
1. Noone coerces you into gambling [unless its a bad film]
2. you are not hurting anyone
This is not a statement, its a question.

for me,
Moral - Accepting and following the ideas of our environment as a means of deciding between right and wrong.[a jihadi terrorist is a moral person in his environ]

Immoral - Knowing and accepting the ideas and values of our environment and going against them for assorted reasons. [a thief stealing food when hes really hungry]

Amoral- Using our own standars for judging right and wrong [sticking to them or not is a different issue]

btw i voted amoralIt's probably considered immoral because people get addicted to it, lose all their money, it ruins families and so on. For you to gamble may not be immoral, you're probably not hurting anyone. But to gamble when you know that you can get addicted to it could be considered immoral, especially if you have a family that relies on your income. And the casino (or whatever) that tries to get people to gamble could be, I think, even if they don't force people into it. They do not take responsibility for the damage they do to people.

And you can't be amoral if you believe there is a difference between right and wrong. Like most people here I have decided on my own standards, but I voted moral.
If someone follows society's definition of morality because it is the easiest thing to do/out of practical reasons then I would define that person as amoral, he doesn't do it because he thinks it's "right". If someone believes society's definition of morality is completely "right" and follows it then that person is moral (and probably a bit stupid or at least lazy), but not because he agrees with society. You are only immoral if you fail to follow your own definition of morality.

Why does every discussion inevitably degrade into a semantics debate around here? Perhaps we're too clever for our own good...:D

[cloakable]

I do have a highly defined moral set, but I do not stick rigidly to it. If the stuation demands it, I will become amoral.

[mgb]

It's probably considered immoral because people get addicted to it, lose all their money, it ruins families and so on. For you to gamble may not be immoral, you're probably not hurting anyone. But to gamble when you know that you can get addicted to it could be considered immoral, especially if you have a family that relies on your income. And the casino (or whatever) that tries to get people to gamble could be, I think, even if they don't force people into it. They do not take responsibility for the damage they do to people.

Is it still immoral if you win?




Why does every discussion inevitably degrade into a semantics debate around here? Perhaps we're too clever for our own good...:D

Semantics are where the action is.

[Werdna]

Is it still immoral if you win?Well, I wasn't saying that it IS immoral but rather that people could easily define it as such if they wanted to... But yes, I think it should be. If you have other people who rely on you gambling is irresponsible risk-taking regardless of the outcome. You are always more likely to lose...

[mgb]

Well, I wasn't saying that it IS immoral but rather that people could easily define it as such if they wanted to... But yes, I think it should be. If you have other people who rely on you gambling is irresponsible risk-taking regardless of the outcome. You are always more likely to lose...

I don't like casinos and don't really gamble, but isn't there some calculated risk involved? I mean, couldn't you call it a job if you consistantly win? I could see it being immoral if you were addicted and it basically became like heroin but if you win (I know the house always wins) and aren't addicted and this becomes a calculated risk...?

Brings up an interesting question about vice. Are victimless crimes immoral? Say you are a single guy that picks up a prostitute who is actually a nymphomaniac (so she is doing what she loves) is that immoral?

[Werdna]

I don't like casinos and don't really gamble, but isn't there some calculated risk involved? I mean, couldn't you call it a job if you consistantly win? I could see it being immoral if you were addicted and it basically became like heroin but if you win (I know the house always wins) and aren't addicted and this becomes a calculated risk...?You mean having gambling as a profession? I don't think it is very realistic, gambling wouldn't exist if people could win that easily. But if someone managed to, hmm, I suppose I don't have a problem with it.


Brings up an interesting question about vice. Are victimless crimes immoral? Say you are a single guy that picks up a prostitute who is actually a nymphomaniac (so she is doing what she loves) is that immoral?It depends, as usual. Assuming that the guy in question believes prostitution is immoral as it harms women, and that he was not aware that the prostitute was a nymphomaniac, it would be immoral. He would feel bad about it afterwards and become a victim of his own crime, not to mention STD's. If he was aware of it I don't think it would be immoral.
The fact that it is a crime is completely irrelevant to whether it's moral or not, in my opinion.
I don't believe victimless crimes in general are immoral, but it can be difficult to see whether the crime is in fact victimless or not. You don't always know all the facts. I would probably avoid them for that reason.

[mgb]

You mean having gambling as a profession? I don't think it is very realistic, gambling wouldn't exist if people could win that easily. But if someone managed to, hmm, I suppose I don't have a problem with it.

It depends, as usual. Assuming that the guy in question believes prostitution is immoral as it harms women, and that he was not aware that the prostitute was a nymphomaniac, it would be immoral. He would feel bad about it afterwards and become a victim of his own crime, not to mention STD's. If he was aware of it I don't think it would be immoral.
The fact that it is a crime is completely irrelevant to whether it's moral or not, in my opinion.
I don't believe victimless crimes in general are immoral, but it can be difficult to see whether the crime is in fact victimless or not. You don't always know all the facts. I would probably avoid them for that reason.

The STD part is in interesting point. Do you think it is immoral to hurt yourself through say drugs or sex or whatever?

[Werdna]

The STD part is in interesting point. Do you think it is immoral to hurt yourself through say drugs or sex or whatever?
I do, though it's not something I follow very strictly. Mostly because of the effects your drug use and such might have on other people. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else I don't think it matters. Same as with victimless crimes really...

[mgb]

Is suicide immoral?

Lets exclude external impacts for the sake of argument on these ones.

Sorry I keep asking questions here. I am enjoying the answers.

[hemanthraz]

Good points about the gambling people- made me think, though i still think that its not a moral issue.
Lesee, Is it ok to gamble if you are a rich single playboy and not if you are a deadbeat from shantytown doing away his last quarter?

I think suicide is not immoral.Not even if a million people loved you or depended on you. Nobody has a claim on the life of another.As ayn rand says, we cant live our life based on the needs of others.Its sad and perhaps illogical but not immoral.

[Werdna]

I said that I think it's ok to gamble as long as you're not harming anyone through it, I think you missed to read a post.
Suicide is immoral, especially if you have millions of people who look up to you. Nobody should be able to force you not to do it, it's your life and your decision, but I still think it's immoral. We shouldn't live our lives BASED on the needs of others but we have to consider them. And Ayn Rand was a nutcase.
If you exclude external impacts, the only reason I can see why it should be immoral is that you go against the wishes of the god who created you. As I don't claim to know that god exists I'd say it's not immoral.

[Durroch]

Hey, c'mon now, there are alot of nutcases out there who turned out to be serious geniuses, don't pass Ayn Rand off so lightly.

And as to morals... As long as there is human variation, which there is, even among the most conformist, there will be a different slant as to what is or is not moral. It is relative to what they believe, and always will be. So, we are all really trying to convince each other of what is moral according to ourselves, are we not? We must bring ourselves into the arguement somehow, and so we then totally bias the whole conversation. Morality is too loose a concept to debate efficiently.

[Werdna]

Hey, c'mon now, there are alot of nutcases out there who turned out to be serious geniuses, don't pass Ayn Rand off so lightly.

And as to morals... As long as there is human variation, which there is, even among the most conformist, there will be a different slant as to what is or is not moral. It is relative to what they believe, and always will be. So, we are all really trying to convince each other of what is moral according to ourselves, are we not? We must bring ourselves into the arguement somehow, and so we then totally bias the whole conversation. Morality is too loose a concept to debate efficiently.Ayn Rand may have come up with a few neat things but more than anything else she was a deluded and dangerous fool. She shouldn't be passed off lightly, she should be comdemned and anything she ever wrote should be burned. Or be used as an example on how you can be perfectly reasonable and still be horribly Wrong. That's my opinion anyway.
Yes I agree that morality is relative, I also said before that everyone should decide for himself. And of course I was talking about my own definition of morality, wasn't really trying to convince anyone that my definition was 'right', I was just explaining it... It is a loose concept, I also said this thread is more about semantics than anything else.

[hemanthraz]

That it is my friends, we the lexically invigorated people love to debate on the usage of words i suppose.
Yeah, Ayn Rand is a nut and i dont agree with all her ideas, but some of them do make sense.

[mgb]

Is book burning immoral? Haa haa, just kidding.

I think the thread has been really interesting. Its funny how our entire world is defined by a right and wrong created entirely by other people. As much as we try to distance ourselves from it we can't. I don't think any of us are amoral or we wouldn't even be on the internet. We would probably be locked up or on a deserted island. Unfortunately, it seems that if you want to be part of society you have to live by the sword or die by the sword.

I disagree that morality is too loose a concept. I think its pretty rigid. The only thing that isn't rigid is our justifications on why what we are doing isn't wrong in order to not have the guilt of doing it.

[tragula]

Count me among the Moral. :-)

I basically take the position that we are social animals and have a moral sense rooted in our biology/genes. Proof for this is the universality of common moral notions--fairness, duty, sympathy, and self control--found and valued in all societies around the world. Also, preverbal children are known to spontaneously share things with others. Have seen this myself many times.

I think that people overthink morality and talk themselves out of things that if they just looked inside they would know are THERE. It's called being too smart for your own good!

The following article is a bit long but it is basically where I got my position/ideas from:

http://www.stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol14and.html

I had posted it in the links section, and had an identical poll. Guess I probably saw this thread and it lodged in my subconscious somewhere... I wasn't being immoral ;-) It will be interesting to see how the results differ!

[Distec]

In my perspective, morals are vauge and subjective. What one person considers moral, another person can consider immoral.

taken from dictionary.com
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

My personal definition is that morals are based on whether a person believes his actions are right or wrong. If I person repeatly does actions he/she knows is wrong, I would consider him/her immoral.

Of course, depends a lot on upbringing as well. I would say morals are based party on are insticts(moral sense) and partly on teachings of society(imagine this scenario - if somone was taught killing people was good and that person honestly believe that, would he be considered moral? - depends on your perspective).

I have my own set of morals which are based on what I believe is right and wrong. Sometimes they conflict with the laws of society, but I tend not to break laws either because I have better things to do than sit in a cold, dark cell =p

[Johnny]

Like I said, I voted 'amoral'. My english may be bad, but this much I understand.My mistake. Thanks.

[Sackanaka]

I try to remain nonjudgmental, but there are many instances where I just "feel" an injustice has been made against my beliefs, my morals. These aren't just regarding common immoralities, such as unprovoked and/or excessive violence, blatant and hurtful lying, etc., but when people go against openmindedness, ironically I too become judgmental.
I think moralities ~ beliefs, and beliefs are what keep me motivated enough to live on as well as not get too lost in the ever-expansive dimension(s) of P.
In essence: Moral, cuz I said so.

[tragula]

I think what happens a lot is that people who are very individualistic may rebel against the mass conformity of "morals." Also if someone has strict parents and teachers waiting to zap them for every transgression, then doing the right thing can come to be seen a form of slavery. AND I suppose people who tend to over-intelectualize things, and put their feelings in a box, may have a harder time empathizing in general, which is the basis for some morality.

That said, I think many allegedly amoral INTP types may eventually discover that their rebellious free for all rationale doesn't really add up.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS