Is there such a thing as amorality? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not every action we take is about morality.

Not every action we take is about morality. — Jackson

That sounds right. Especially as regards necessities: eating, peeing, pooping. These I would call amoral.

Apart from necessities, it seems you would have to consider the opportunity cost of each action - and there a moral dimension may be discovered. For instance, just sitting there might look amoral. But considering that the time you spend just sitting there could be invested in helping other persons in some way (opportunity cost), a moral element is introduced.

But considering that the time you spend just sitting there could be invested in helping other persons i — ZzzoneiroCosm

Why do I have to help other persons?

Why do I have to help other persons? — Jackson

You don't. But the notion is at the heart of morality and ethics.

You don't. But the notion is at the heart of morality and ethics. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Christianity? What else?

Why do I have to help other persons? — Jackson

You don’t. But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so, you would be amoral.

But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so, — javi2541997

Not following. How do they impose?

How do they impose? — Jackson

Through political lobbies and social media. Imagine: some individual records me not helping a homeless man in the train. What would you think of me? And the masses as an overall?

What else? — Jackson

Just the general way people feel about action in the world. Possibly rooted in Christianity. I'm not knowledgeable (or interested) enough to point you to pre- or non-Christian examples.

I take it as a no-brainer that morals and ethics are centered on our relationships with other people.

some individual records me not helping a homeless man in the train. — javi2541997

What is that person doing to help?

morals and ethics are centered on our relationships with other people. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, but helping others in not inherent.

What is that person doing to help? — Jackson

Nothing, but he is destroying my integrity and honor.

Nothing, but he is destroying my integrity and honor. — javi2541997

I do not think so.

It was just the example I used. You're free to substitute an example more in line with your view of the world.

It was just the example I used. You're free to substitute an example more in line with your view of the world. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I did not agree with you.

I see that. I don't see it as a particularly important point. So I'm not really interested in continuing the exchange. Take care. :smile:

I see that. I don't see it as a particularly important point. So I'm not really interested in continuing the exchange. Take care. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Why start a thread if you have no interest. Waste of time.

Interested in the thread. Not in your point. Cheers. :smile:

I'll probably ignore you from now on.

:smile:

Why do I have to help other persons? — Jackson

You don’t. But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so, you would be amoral. — javi2541997

You're engaging in true moral discussion and maybe not know you're pushing the correct buttons.

1. Society's compulsion for the individuals to provide moral contributions to the public is itself a legitimate moral question. And guess what? One can actually question it and they would still be under a legitimate reason to question, like what Jackson is doing.

2. Contrast that with an individual's action that directly affect others -- for example, murdering someone, or smoking in a closed room with other people, or inciting chaos in a crowded theater by fire alarm prank.

Bottom line, society cannot compel individuals on 1, but it is within reason to punish for the offenses mentioned in 2.

smoking in a closed room with other people — L'éléphant

Mea culpa! A thousand apologies.

What [ ] is called amorality is a thing that does not exist. If you are willing to submit to any norm, you have, nolens volens, to submit to the norm of denying all morality, and this is not amoral but immoral. — Ortega - Revolt of the Masses, p. 189

I get what he's saying. Plus judgement of some kind is at the core of any action.

On the other hand, amorality is a lens through which we can see the world. We use that lens in anthropology and psychology. In those endeavors we aren't judging, but rather trying to understand.

amorality — ZzzoneiroCosm

Aristotle's potential-actual distinction seems important.

Feel free to expand on that. :smile:

Feel free to expand on that. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'd rather not! Thank you for asking.

:cool: