| Revision as of 20:08, 24 April 2010 edit71.214.241.56 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:58, 1 May 2010 edit undoBeno1000 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,659 edits →Meta-ethicsNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ==Meta-ethics== | ==Meta-ethics== | ||
| {{Section OR|date=March 2009}} | {{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 |
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. | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 03:58, 1 May 2010
Amoralism is the complete absence of moral beliefs, and/or the unequivocal belief that the theory of morality is immaterial.
Though often associated with immoralism, the two are fundamentally different. 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.
History
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (October 2009) |
Glover has cited realist views of amoralism held by early Athenians, and in some ethical positions affirmed by Joseph Stalin. The aims of the radical enlightenment culminated in moral nihilism seems to have been realised in the figure of the Marquis de Sade.
Meta-ethics
 | This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Amoralism is generally regarded as a manifestation of moral nihilism,, which is not related to moral scepticism. Amorality is distinct from immorality. 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.
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.
Some different sects of Christianity and Judaism share perspective with the values of Amoralism.
See also
References
- ^ Johnstone, Megan-Jane (2008). Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0729538732.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - Superson, Anita (2009). The Moral Skeptic. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–159. ISBN 978-0195376623.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language
- Glover, Jonathan (2000). Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century. Yale University Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0300087000.
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.'
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - The Development of Atheist Amoralism: De Sade
- Michael Newman, Morals in Theory pg. 123