| Revision as of 09:01, 3 September 2010 edit76.168.95.118 (talk) →Changing intro to reflect proper definition of amorality: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:26, 3 September 2010 edit undoDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →Changing intro to reflect proper definition of amorality: ewNext edit → | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
| I undid the revision of 76.168.95.118. An active denial is a moral consideration, and therefore equal to immorality, as per the definition. --] (]) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | I undid the revision of 76.168.95.118. An active denial is a moral consideration, and therefore equal to immorality, as per the definition. --] (]) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Changing intro to reflect proper definition of amorality == | === Changing intro to reflect proper definition of amorality === | ||
| The intro currently reads: "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality." This sentence should be changed. According to the well-sourced definition of ] on its own page, amorality can be either of several things (indicated by the word "or"): "Amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." In this article the definition is necessarily restrictive, failing to give full faith to other sources of definitions of amorality. I propose it be changed to instead read ''"Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs."'' "Disregard" in this instance does not refer to immorality for the simple reason that disregard does not positively indicate opposition. This change may be slightly more wordy, but it is the most concise yet clear definition available that does justice to the concept of amorality. Faust, unless you have objections to raise I will change this in an hour or so. ] (]) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | The intro currently reads: "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality." This sentence should be changed. According to the well-sourced definition of ] on its own page, amorality can be either of several things (indicated by the word "or"): "Amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." In this article the definition is necessarily restrictive, failing to give full faith to other sources of definitions of amorality. I propose it be changed to instead read ''"Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs."'' "Disregard" in this instance does not refer to immorality for the simple reason that disregard does not positively indicate opposition. This change may be slightly more wordy, but it is the most concise yet clear definition available that does justice to the concept of amorality. Faust, unless you have objections to raise I will change this in an hour or so. ] (]) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : First, Misplaced Pages has no set time limit - it can take days to achieve new consensus. Second, re-adding will be ]. Thank you for starting discussion, but do not re-add (as per ]) unless new consensus is reached. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 09:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:26, 3 September 2010
 | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], ]
For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
|
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links : |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | Philosophy: Ethics Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Morality in teleology and deontology
In formal ethics morality is used as meaning the 'good' action. A disambiguation can be made however. In teleological ethics the word 'moral' is used as a synonym for ethics. In deontological ethics the word 'moral' is used in a more narrow sense: that act of which one can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law. A remarkable consequence of this is that teleological ethics is immoral from a deontological viewpoint.
- Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the seperation 'moral' considerations. The scholarly issues are complex, with some writers seeing Kant as more Aristotelian, and Aristotle as more involved with a separate sphere of responsibility and duty, than the simple contrast suggests.
Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240
I will make a reference out of this quote, but we might include this quote, for reference purposes. Let me know if any one has any feedback. --Faust (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs)
Sorry for forgetting the sig... --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Since no reactions have been given I will add this under an ethical header. If needs be we can discuss things here after that still. --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, after reading the introduction I placed the little part there (with a small edit to suit the place in the text). Since the entire heading was already about ethics and a mention of the word usage of the word 'morality' in ethics this seemed prudent. --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Reference with definitions immorality and amorality
I had placed a reference with the definitions mentioned aboven, but this has been removed for an unclear reason. The fact is that Kant defines these in his 'Kritik der Reinen Vernunft' and it seems to me that definitions like that should be referred to a source at all times. Now, a user has removed this reference for reasons of inappropriateness. I hereby state that I will replace the reference, unless a really good reason will be given why a reference of a definition should not be given. --Faust (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This concerns this reference: Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Immanuel Kant, P25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, could you please quote Kant's definitions and specify the reference (for instance, which edition of the Kritik are you talking about?). My main objection however is the fact that Kant held a very specific view on morality. Referring to his particular definitions of related terms in the article's first paragraph, which as I wrote is supposed to be a general introduction to the term "morality", would therefore be inappropriate. Zaspino (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, the entire point Kant is making and why this part of the article is UNCPECIFIC is the difference between im- and a-. The deontological idea of morality that I am sure you are referring to is a specific one, but follows from the meaning of the word. So, you are merely confusing the two issues. It is your removal and comments that are inappropriate. --Faust (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will elaborate a little for your benefit. Something that is a moral is something that has got nothing to do with morality (in the wide sense). Something that is immoral is something that goes against morality (in the wide sense). This leads to a question as to what exactly is moral than. That is up to the understanding of the subject. The subject will try to act in a way it understands as 'good'. However, this may still cause people unintended suffering. This is why Kant separated the hypothetical and the categorical imperative. One may cause harm inadvertently. This subsequently leads to the more narrow approach to morality. It is a strong argument for Kant's idea. Regardless, it proves the differences between his narrow approach to morality and the im- and a- distinction, which is mere linguistics. Kant does use the im- an a- distinction to construct his narrow moral view though. In fact, it is the very meaning of the word from its creation albeit misused and wrongfully interpreted, which shows the importance of separating between the hypothetical and categorical imperative: it reveals the inconsistencies in one's reasons.--Faust (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, an online source I have found:
- http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Amoral
- --Faust (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information, but I fail to see how it underpins the necessity of referring to the Kritik der reinen Vernunft in the first paragraph of the article. So my objection still stands.
- And remember, you claimed that Kant defined the terms "amorality" and "immorality" in his treatise Kritik der reinen Vernunft. That is why you wanted to insert the reference in the first place, isn't it? So just for clarity's sake a renewed request: could you please quote those definitions? Zaspino (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to see your problem with my reference. I have given an online source that shows it was Immanuel Kant who said so. The separation can only have come from a paleontologist sine teleologists do not separate immoral and amoral, leading to the fact that immoral and moral are not separated. This is why the difference between the hypothetical and the categorical needed to be formulated, hence only Kant could have done so. I am also saying that I know Kant said so (I have read so myself), in fact Schopenhauer for instance credits him for it. He uses it to get to his idea of free will and will an sich in his World as Will and Representation. The only thing is that the grand total is about 4 pages long. Kant has a tendency to draw things out, you see. I will not retype 4 pages here, nor will I read a number of online pages to find the section.
- To me the only problem here is you. It is not the fact that you are unfamiliar with any philosophies at all, but something else. The proof has been given, the source has been given, the place is thereby proven to be appropriate. So, why are you still blocking this reference? It is the first time a reference needed a reference that I have ever heard of by the way, but I humored you regardless. I even gave you some lessons. What is your point of view that blocks you from admitting your mistake?
- --Faust (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- In the general introduction to the concept of morality you provided two concise and very general definitions of the terms "amorality" and "immorality" with a specific reference to Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft, which I objected to for the reasons stated above. Now it also turns out that, contrary to your earlier claim, the source you referred to (Kant's treatise) doesn't contain any definitions. I mean, let's face it, four pages of long-winding sentences can hardly be considered a proper definition, whichever way you look at it.
- By the way, you wrote "nor will I read a number of online pages to find the section." Why not? If you download this and use the search function, it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to find that section. Just tell me where in the online version of Kant's Kritik the definition of both of the terms starts and where it ends. Zaspino (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- 1)I didn't provide the text. I only added the reference since Kant is credited for it, he should be referred to.
- 2)With that the burden of proof shifts to you. You obviously think Kant is not to be credited with that, so please feel free to back that idea up with proof. If you cannot supply any, I will replace the reference.
- 3)The search function is flawed. There are 1000000 mentions of the word moral in the critque, but only a few show up.
- 4)Why don't you answer the question: "what is your point of view"?
- --Faust (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- 1)+2) Your reference to Kant in the lead paragraph of the article would convey the wrong impression that those terms were coined by Kant, or that the definitions were taken directly from Kant's treatise, or that they are exclusively associated with Kant's work.
- 3) Okay, my bad (I didn't know the google books search function was flawed). But anyway, if you know your way around Kant's work, it shouldn't be much of a problem to find the four pages you referred to above. Suppose you would indeed put back your reference, how then would it enlighten any possible readers if it doesn't direct them to a specific page of Kant's treatise?
- 4) I don't see what my point of view has got to do with our disagreement. I simply object to irrelevant or faulty references being inserted in a wikipedia article. Zaspino (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Zaspino: Faust wants to insert the reference and therefore the burden of proof lies with him. Furthermore, the distinctions between moral, amoral and immoral were made long before Kant made its entrance on the philosophical scene. The distinction between moral and immoral, for example, is also used within teleological ethics, as this article in the Encyclopedia Brittancia clearly demonstrates. (If this distinction would not apply, teleological ethics would not be ethics at all. Of course it is possible to argue that teleological ethics is not ethics at all, but that is not the way authoritative handbooks of ethics talk about the subject. Encyclopedians are there to represent what authoritative handbooks say, not to refute it). Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a retracing of our steps. You asked for a reference of the reference and I have given it to you. The reference of the reference proves that the definitions were Kantian and that should be enough for you. Since it isn't it is clear your POV is what is in the way. That is why your POV is important. Now, if you think this isn't true, please prove that. If you cannot I will place my reference back again.--Faust (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Faust, I urge you not to put back your reference, since two users (Theobald Tiger and me) strongly object to it. Please try to properly address our complaints instead of focussing on my POV. Zaspino (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Zaspino, I have properly addressed your complaints. Why are you retracing our steps? Apart from that I can only say that even in a crowd of thousand, the truth is still the truth and a lie still a lie. --Faust (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Faust, You have not properly adressed our complaints. Chasing after truths is not an encyclopedic activity. That you can do in your own writings elsewhere. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have not replaced the reference as of yet, but it should be there. I will walk another path. --Faust (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Undid revision
I undid the revision of 76.168.95.118. An active denial is a moral consideration, and therefore equal to immorality, as per the definition. --Faust (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Changing intro to reflect proper definition of amorality
The intro currently reads: "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality." This sentence should be changed. According to the well-sourced definition of amorality on its own page, amorality can be either of several things (indicated by the word "or"): "Amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." In this article the definition is necessarily restrictive, failing to give full faith to other sources of definitions of amorality. I propose it be changed to instead read "Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is an absence of a set standard, indifference towards, or disregard of a standard set of moral beliefs." "Disregard" in this instance does not refer to immorality for the simple reason that disregard does not positively indicate opposition. This change may be slightly more wordy, but it is the most concise yet clear definition available that does justice to the concept of amorality. Faust, unless you have objections to raise I will change this in an hour or so. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- First, Misplaced Pages has no set time limit - it can take days to achieve new consensus. Second, re-adding will be edit-warring. Thank you for starting discussion, but do not re-add (as per WP:BRD) unless new consensus is reached. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)