Misplaced Pages

Amorality: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:06, 7 May 2010 editXqbot (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,325,217 editsm robot Removing: ru:Аморализм← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:43, 21 November 2024 edit undoRhymeWrens (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users610 edits ce, added wikilinks and changed oneTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App full source Disambiguation links added 
(190 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Lack or absence of morality}}
'''Amoralism''' is the complete absence of moral beliefs, and/or the unequivocal belief that the theory of ] is immaterial.<ref name='Johnstone 2008'>{{cite book | last = Johnstone | first = Megan-Jane | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective | publisher = Elsevier Health Sciences | year = 2008 | location = | pages = 102–103 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 978-0729538732 }}</ref><ref name='Superson 2009'>{{cite book | last = Superson | first = Anita | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Moral Skeptic | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2009 | location = | pages = 127–159 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 978-0195376623 }}</ref>
{{Distinguish|Immorality|Abnormality (disambiguation){{!}}Abnormality}}
{{For|the philosophical position rejecting all moral claims|Moral nihilism}}


'''Amorality''' (also known as '''amoralism''') is an absence of, ] towards, disregard for, or incapacity for ].<ref name='Johnstone 2008'>{{cite book | last = Johnstone | first = Megan-Jane | title = Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective | publisher = Elsevier Health Sciences | year = 2008 | pages = 102–103 | isbn = 978-0-7295-3873-2 }}</ref><ref name='Superson 2009'>{{cite book | last = Superson | first = Anita | title = The Moral Skeptic | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2009 | pages = 127–159 | isbn = 978-0-19-537662-3 }}</ref><ref name='Dictionary.com'>{{cite web | url = http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amorality | title = Amorality | access-date = 2010-06-18 | work = Dictionary.com| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100729153956/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amorality| archive-date= 29 July 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref> Some simply refer to it as a case of being neither moral nor immoral.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Anti-Dictionary: A Selected List of Words Being Forced from the Modern Lexicon|last=Cromwell|first=Michael|publisher=Writers Club Press|year=2002|isbn=978-0595224173|location=New York|pages=3}}</ref> Amoral should not be confused with '']'', which refers to an ] doing or thinking something they know or believe to be ].<ref>{{cite book |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=New School Dictionary |publisher=Collins |page=24 |date=1999 |isbn=0 00 472238-8}}</ref>
Though often associated with ], the two are fundamentally different.<ref name='Johnstone 2008' /> Immoralism is a system that does not accept moral principles and directly opposes morality, while amoralism does not even consider the existence of morality plausible.<ref>Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language</ref>


Morality and amorality in humans and other animals is a subject of dispute among scientists and philosophers. If morality is intrinsic to ], then amoral human beings either do not exist or are only deficiently human,<ref name="C. S. Lewis, Abolition of Man">{{cite book|last=Lewis|first=Clive Staples|title=Abolition of Man|year=2010|publisher=Lits|isbn=978-1609421472|pages=60|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm}}</ref> a condition sometimes described as ] or ] 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 ] or for ill.<ref>Smith, M. K., , ''The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education'', updated 19 October 2019, accessed 8 September 2021</ref>
==History==
{{Expand section|date=October 2009}}
''Glover'' has cited ] views of amoralism held by early ], and in some ethical positions affirmed by ].<ref name='Glover 2000'>{{cite book | last = Glover | first = Jonathan | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century | publisher = Yale University Press | year = 2000 | location = | pages = 29 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 978-0300087000 | quote=The Athenians presented hard amoralism as mere realism. Echoes of this have been heard many times since, for example in a comment by Stalin on the policies of countries at war: 'Whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army has power to do. It cannot be otherwise.'}}</ref>
The aims of the radical enlightenment culminated in moral nihilism seems to have been realised in the figure of the ]<ref></ref>.


There is a position which claims that amorality is just another form of morality or a concept that is close to it, citing ], ], ], and moral ] as constructs that resemble key aspects of amorality.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Ethics Without Morals: In Defence of Amorality|last=Marks|first=Joel|publisher=Routledge|year=2013|isbn=9780415635561|location=New York|pages=57}}</ref>
==Meta-ethics==
{{Section OR|date=March 2009}}
Amoralism is generally regarded as a manifestation of ],{{Weasel-inline|date=July 2009}}{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}, which is not related to moral scepticism. Amorality is distinct from ]. One who is amoral denies the existence of objective morality, whereas one who is immoral recognizes a form of morality but chooses not to comply with it.


== Inanimate objects ==
Unlike a moral or immoral person who would believe in some form of morality and choose to either follow it or not, the amoral person does not recognise right or wrong.
One may consider any entity that is not ] amoral. For example, a rock may be used (by ]s) for good or bad purposes, but the rock itself is neither good nor bad. In ], the ] concept that ] applied morality to existence itself and was a point of concern in early Christianity in the form of ], as it opposed the notion that creation is good, as stated in ].<ref name="Ignatius of Antioch">{{Cite book|author=Ignatius of Antioch|author-link=Ignatius of Antioch|title=The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans|work=Ante-Nicean Fathers|volume=1|editor1-first=Alexander|editor1-last=Roberts|editor2-first=James|editor2-last=Donaldson|editor3-first=A. Cleveland|editor3-last=Coxe|editor4-first=Kevin|editor4-last=Knight|publisher=Christian Literature Publishing|year=1885|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm}}</ref> In modern science, however, the ] of the universe is often observed amorally for ] purposes.


== Legal entities ==
Some different sects of Christianity and Judaism share perspective with the values of Amoralism.<ref>Michael Newman, ''Morals in Theory'' pg. 123</ref>
]s are thought by some to be amoral entities.<ref name='Hazelton 2005'>{{cite journal | title = The Amorality of Public Corporations | journal = Essays in Philosophy | year = 2005 | first = James | last = Hazelton |author2=Ken Cussen | volume = 6 | issue = 2 | pages = 366–384 | doi = 10.5840/eip2005624 }}</ref><ref name='Quigley 2003-2004'>{{cite journal|title=Catholic Social Thought and the Amorality of Large Corporations: Time to Abolish Corporate Personhood |journal=Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law |date=2003–2004 |first=William |last=Quigley |pages=109–134 |url=http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/conferences/bilbao/papers/quigley.pdf |access-date=2012-12-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140905021402/http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/conferences/bilbao/papers/quigley.pdf |archive-date=2014-09-05 }}</ref><ref name='Stephens 2012'>{{cite journal | title = The Amorality of Profit: Transnational Corporations and Human Rights | journal = Berkeley Journal of International Law | year = 2012 | first = Beth | last = Stephens | volume = 20 | issue = 1 | url = http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&context=bjil | format = PDF | access-date = 2012-12-17}}</ref><ref name='Donaldson 1982'>{{cite book | last = Donaldson | first = Thomas | title = Corporations and morality | publisher = Prentice-Hall | year = 1982 | pages = | url = https://archive.org/details/corporationsmora00dona/page/78 | isbn = 978-0-13-177014-0 | url-access = registration }}</ref> 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 ].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Corporations and Criminal Responsibility, Second edition|last=Wells|first=Celia|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2001|isbn=978-0198267935|location=Oxford|pages=84}}</ref>


==See also== ==See also==
*]
*]
⚫ *]
⚫ *]
*]
*] *]
*] *]
⚫ *]
⚫ *]
*]


==References== ==References==
{{reflist|2}} {{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* at '']''


{{Authority control}}
⚫ ]
]
]


] ]
⚫ ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 23:43, 21 November 2024

Lack or absence of morality Not to be confused with Immorality or Abnormality. For the philosophical position rejecting all moral claims, see Moral nihilism.

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

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, 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.

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.

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. In modern science, however, the matter of the universe is often observed amorally for objective purposes.

Legal entities

Corporations are thought by some to be amoral entities. 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.

See also

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.
Categories: