Morality, immorality, & amorality

What is the difference between amorality and immorality?

AI Overview
Learn more

Amorality describes a lack of moral principles or a disregard for right and wrong, while immorality refers to actions or behaviors that are considered wrong or against accepted moral standards.


Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Amoral:
  • Refers to someone or something that is completely lacking in morals or has no understanding of what is right or wrong.
  • An amoral person is not concerned with moral considerations.
  • Examples: A machine that is programmed to carry out tasks without any moral judgment, or a person who is incapable of understanding moral concepts.
  • Refers to actions or behaviors that violate established moral principles or societal norms.
  • An immoral person knows the difference between right and wrong but chooses to act against what is considered moral.
  • Examples: Stealing, lying, cheating, or engaging in harmful behaviors that are widely condemned.

Click to expand...

Immoral:

• Refers to actions or behaviors that violate established moral principles or societal norms.
• An immoral person knows the difference between right and wrong but chooses to act against what is considered moral.
• Examples: Stealing, lying, cheating, or engaging in harmful behaviors that are widely condemned.

Click to expand...

Isn't that something a person can just look up in
dictionaries and thesauruses?

Are you trying to make a point about the efficiency or
inadequacies of AI?

Or what's this thread meant to be?

tree said:

Isn't that something a person can just look up in
dictionaries and thesauruses?

Are you trying to make a point about the efficiency or
inadequacies of AI?

Or what's this thread meant to be?

Click to expand...

Conversational discussion, maybe?

Jonn said:

What is the difference between amorality and immorality?

Click to expand...

Immoral: Refers to actions or behaviors that violate established moral principles or societal norms.

Click to expand...

Straight off the bat that first description is wrong. Very Wrong. Societal norms do not represent morality in any way shape or form, in fact many societal norms are often completely immoral. eg:

In most of Australia walking in to a shop with bare feet is quite socially acceptable, but in colder cities like Melbourne and Hobart it would not only be frowned upon, I would also likely be barred entry to shops because down there wearing shoes for your entire life is the societal norm and they don't like people stepping outside of what they are familiar with.

That has nothing to do with morality, in fact that attitude is completely immoral and almost religious in it's application - "I don't like going around barefoot so no one else should be allowed to either."

If you have to get your morality from a book then you've completely missed the point.

tree said:

Isn't that something a person can just look up in
dictionaries and thesauruses?

Are you trying to make a point about the efficiency or
inadequacies of AI?

Or what's this thread meant to be?

Click to expand...

It is a learning thread.
I am researching and refining my understanding of the concepts.
I always do this.

You can't do that on your own, by reading?
Listening to lectures?

It has to be thrashed out here?

Outdated said:

Straight off the bat that first description is wrong. Very Wrong. Societal norms do not represent morality in any way shape or form, in fact many societal norms are often completely immoral. eg:

In most of Australia walking in to a shop with bare feet is quite socially acceptable, but in colder cities like Melbourne and Hobart it would not only be frowned upon, I would also likely be barred entry to shops because down there wearing shoes for your entire life is the societal norm and they don't like people stepping outside of what they are familiar with.

That has nothing to do with morality, in fact that attitude is completely immoral and almost religious in it's application - "I don't like going around barefoot so no one else should be allowed to either."

If you have to get your morality from a book then you've completely missed the point.

Click to expand...

Far be it for me to defend A.I....
But...

Here is the defined context:

Examples: Stealing, lying, cheating, or engaging in harmful behaviors that are widely condemned.

Click to expand...

I believe footwear does not qualify, here.

tree said:

You can't do that on your own, by reading?
Listening to lectures?

It has to be thrashed out here?

Click to expand...

I am implicitly asking for human involvement.
Outdated has made an interesting contribution, already.

So you're lonely and want a conversation?

Sort of like attending a meeting of a book club....

IMO one salient aspect of @Outdated 's post is that behaviors and beliefs that are considered to be "moral" are often just conventions - that is, social constructs in the real meaning of that term.

That puts them squarely into the category of behaviors that many ASD's have trouble with, and would generally benefit from understanding them better.

I find arbitrary rules that are claimed to be consistent with good, "moral" behavior quite troublesome.
Particularly in these strange days, where many of the "immutable standards and rules" of my youth have been cast aside, or are major battlegrounds in the "culture war".

If they've changed in a generation or two, they certainly weren't universal truths. If "good" has become "evil" (less common that simple changes OFC, but it has certainly happened) what does that say about either the past, the present, or both?

My practical self hasn't changed: I let the NT's do whatever they like as long as they don't make things difficult for me personally, which makes for a simple, peaceful life.
But while trying to figure out why they do what they do have become simpler with age, it's also become stranger.

For example I'm not comfortable with the modern inventions of "relative morality" or "relative truth", and I don't expect my take on those will change before I die of old age.

I believe what is moral, is what God says it is, we are spiritual beings, and doing what God says is immoral, does harm to your soul, others and society. Society for example find 'screwing around' acceptable, but look what it does, infidelity and 'screwing around' destroys families and feelings, good families are the base for a good society. Harm healthy families and you harm everything.

The crux of the OP depends on whether "morality" is defined as an objective or subjective term.

Many people (mistakenly) believe that conventions (like language & traffic laws) are objective when they are not. Both systems require conventions to operate correctly, but no set of conventions is objectively superior to another...

Regarding conventions, we were taught in Marine Corps boot camp, there is

• the right way,
• the wrong way &
• the military way...!

Crossbreed said:

no set of conventions is objectively superior to another..

Click to expand...

This is true for e.g. driving on the left or the right side of the road (you have to choose one and commit to it).

But I think it's better to say it's difficult to compare moral codes and ethics. Claiming they're all equivalent opens the door to permitting and supporting very bad behavior just because a moderately large number of people believe it's ok.

Think of it this way: if all moral codes are equally "good" (or equally bad, which is the same thing), we cannot criticize anything our ancestors (or anyone else's ancestors) did. Which puts the modern political use of "progressive" in an interesting light: if there are no qualitative differences, there's no point in improvement.

IMO we should try to improve. And we should discuss the reasons for and nature of possible changes in order to get some agreement on what should be changed, and how changed should be prioritized, sequenced, and "paid for".

Current methods lean towards being coercive or reactive (to "unreasonable" coercion), and since it's a complex domain, all sides are likely to be doing both at the same time . This approach is very vulnerable to "ideological capture", resulting in the wrong people controlling the "debate", and random, generally poor results.

That is why I proposed that we should determine whether "morality" is objective or subjective, first.
I am inclined to believe the former,* but I could not enter a meaningful dialogue with someone who insists on the latter.

*The only "gray" areas are those we do not clearly understand, yet. Murder, stealing & malicious lying seem like no-brainers to me...

It can't be simplified that way.

In human matters that are worth discussing at all, there will always be a subjective element. Yet a system that allows humans to live together at modern scales requires that almost everyone conforms to meta-cultural norms.

Moral and cultural relativity are (deliberate and/malicious) attacks on that simple but necessary requirement: a near majority has to agree more less on "right and wrong", and be comfortable behaving accordingly.

Crossbreed said:

That is why I proposed that we should determine whether "morality" is objective or subjective, first.
I am inclined to believe the former,* but I could not enter a meaningful dialogue with someone who insists on the latter.

*The only "gray" areas are those we do not clearly understand, yet. Murder, stealing & malicious lying seem like no-brainers to me...

Click to expand...

I get what you are trying to say, but I agree with @Hypnalis on this.

There are too many factors when it comes to humanbeings. While man has created societal norms for good and evil acts. The only true definition is through nature.

The heart of the idea of morality is practically drenched in the subjective veiw of perspective. While yes, there are things we all will generally attempt to agree on. There is always caveats built in to the personal beliefs of each person. Especially in the justification of our personal acts. Does this make you moral, immoral, or amoral for your choice? Everyone will have different opinions in this regard. But the individual who did those acts will justify it as moral, in thier mind.

But there is a scary implication in this. Especially in those that are sociopaths and psychopaths. Even in narcissism.

Freedom to think and feel as we will, is a fundamental truth of being human. The divergence in how we perceive things as individuals will alway make things like this a perpetual debate.

Xinyta said:

Does this make you moral, immoral, or amoral for your choice?

Click to expand...

If morality can be defined by a "plumb line," I seek to align myself with it.
If such a standard is rejected, my personal pursuit of it --necessarily-- makes me amoral (in subjective terms). (It is another facet of thinking "outside of the box...")

I can "live and let live" with the "gray" areas of morality, but I am convinced that tobacco* sales are likely immoral (like more glaring forms of assisted suicide), even if they are not entirely illegal. Adultery would be another example. I won't lash out at smokers nor adulterers, but I am inclined to recommend against both.

*Alcohol, caffeine and sugar (in contrast) confer some benefit, when they are not abused.

When a fox kills and eats a rabbit, the fox *probably* doesn't feel bad or guilty about it because it doesn't understand such things and needs to eat the way nature created it, which is amoral.