Is it perfectly alright to be amoral?

40% Normal
15 Comments

Amoral even excludes the iron rule by definition: do unto others before they do unto you. There's very little difference but you can't be amoral and follow a moral rule. Amoral means "not moral or immoral, especially when not following ethics". I'm amoral though I'm ethical, I'm a hedonist anyway (which isn't moral, it's not concerned with right and wrong), I've been an immoralist years ago, but I decided on amorality, I follow expressivism, which describes morality as not descriptive or factual (it's complicated), this is the way it used to be. I don't follow morality but I objectify it for what it is, morality is an authority, they will tell you you did the wrong thing, they never once tell you you did the right thing, morality doesn't work. All the blame and wanting to kill me people must be really pissed at me for being so smart, I get none of the putdowns if I wasn't moral, when I tell them I believe that I did the right thing they wouldn't care, they'd be horrified at my morality. Morality sucks, and it's no fun, it's not going to work, all there is is that I'm non-violent and non-abusive, learning/an education in morality is a waste of time, society will call you the wrong thing, even if it was a scientific morality it's not going to work, they call it the wrong thing, just cut it out, I think people should stop taking a dislike of moral people, just for choosing to be something it's not going to work, is anyone still convinced they can be anything they want? You can't be anything you want, you be the way is acceptable in society, society doesn't like a person for what it is, so now you see I'm not being blamed for what I do, I'm being blamed for what I am: a moral person, said to do the wrong thing, or a quirky person, used as the object of anger and hate, and I'm not even being liked for what I do: as a quirky person I'm good, nice, oh no you're not! You're quirky, you must be bad! Now that I'm normal, and I'm classy/fancy, I get judged not for what I do but what I am. Furthermore would it be alright to be amoral?

Voting Results
40% Normal
Based on 5 votes (2 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 15 )
  • Bizkit
    3 years ago

    I suppose if there is no morality in the objective sense, there is then no 'right' or 'wrong' either. At any rate, these words become drained of any meaning.

    So even saying 'it feels 'right' for me' has no more meaning than saying 'it feels 'purple' for me'.

    I may be wrong, but what you seem to be describing then is a code of behaviour based entirely on your personal preferences. In other words, 'if I like it, it's ok. If I don't like it, it's not ok".

    But since such a code of behaviour is entirely and utterly subjective, you then have no grounds to complain if someone else with their own subjective code comes along and robs you at knifepoint, because for them, that's fine and they like it. And they don't see any reason why they should work for a living when they can rob other people like you.

    Well, actually you can complain all you wish, but you would be just blowing words into the air with no meaning for the sake of talking. You each have your own code, and that's all there is to it. Their code encompasses robbing you, while yours may not go that far. Neither of you are pretending to be 'moral' so both of you are being totally honest and upfront and not at all like 'hypocritical' people who argue it's objectively wrong to rob people.

    On the other hand, if you claim it is wrong to rob people, simply because it IS wrong to rob people, you are now arguing against yourself for an objective moral code that transcends your personal, subjective and individual preferences.

    Hope this helps.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Hansberger
      3 years ago

      I wasn't describing a code, but considering that you haven't done a bad thing and that it's in your code to help people, I rest my case, it's not going to work, there's no objective morality, morality isn't a fact and it's not true, it describes nothing.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • PonyProblem
    3 years ago

    I have very few morals

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Tommythecaty
    3 years ago

    I’m a moral relativist of sorts on the inside.

    To me, basically, moral judgments in regards to me are either true or false based solely on their being relative to my personal views on my actions. If I don’t think what I did was wrong then it wasn’t, period.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Hansberger
      3 years ago

      You're right, but morality invites people to give you strife, they will think you're evil, that you were abusive, violent because of morality, all that needs to be done is follow a moral anti-realism, or in your case, state that other people are wrong as to what morality is. That boosts confidence, eh! Saying I did the right thing because I said so.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Tommythecaty
        3 years ago

        Indeed. People thinking I’m evil or anything else isn’t my concern, I am what I say I am and you are what I say you are and that does not change to me internally. You cannot force one to agree with you only to pretend to agree with you.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Hansberger
          3 years ago

          Truth's in the eye of the beholder, what you believe is true and what I believe is true, period. I agree with you 100%, are you thinking I'm forcing people to agree with me? I have the right to my opinion. This world of normal people is people who share common beliefs, I think that's me and you, I happen to be a relativist, just like you. So I think you're in agreement when you say things like you are what you say you are, and all that. I believe in that stuff, no-God, this is long! So to sum it up come to my next post, it will come as a surprise, or not, I can't make you do anything you don't want to do. :)

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • Tommythecaty
            3 years ago

            Oh No I wasn’t talking about you I just meant people in general

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • olderdude-xx
    3 years ago

    I'd rather meet and deal with someone who claims to be Amore and acts accordingly that meet and deal with all the people who claim to be moral and don't act in accordance with their claimed standards (I'm so tired of people claiming to be religious when its obvious by their actions that they are anything but - and extremely selective on what they consider "religious"; and then there is the question of which religions standards are moral?).

    However, I doubt that you are actually amoral. You do state that you are ethical. Your standards are just different. Live to your standards and you meet the key definition of being moral.

    I have no problem with alternate standards as long as you can explain to me what yours are.

    Have a great day,

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Hansberger
      3 years ago

      Alternate standards indeed, my alternative standards is stating that there's no moral facts that moral terms describe or represent, and that there's no moral sentences to which moral relations and properties refer. Hedonism and aestheticism is the way to go, and being non-violent and non-abusive. Being moral invites strife, it never worked, but then my flatmate said I have no morals, he hit the nail on the head. However I'm aesthetic, I do things in a classy, fancy, refined way, and human behaviour when it meets these standards isn't doing the wrong thing, nor thinking it's the wrong thing, standards of right and wrong are a troublesome waste of time, but to make such behaviour work without it is bloody difficult. You're going to need to search for one.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • olderdude-xx
        3 years ago

        Choosing to be non-violent and non-abusive is actually a moral choice. So to is doing things in a classy, fancy, refined way - which is your preferred standards.

        You are correct that to make any moral standards work long term is bloody difficult as you have to make choices that cost efforts.

        You actually sound like a very decent person. You just do not accept many of the common "morals" presented by many of the current interpretations of the mainstream religions. That's fine. I just believe that you do in fact have moral standards - and you can clearly describe them.

        Peace, and I wish you the best future,

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Hansberger
          3 years ago

          That's true, different strokes for different folks I say. I accept that to you it's moral, your definition might be a little different to mine, my definition of moral is: "having a sense of right and wrong" and "based on standards of right and wrong", it doesn't mean to me "right conduct, being good", but perhaps dictionaries are willfully out of date only stating correct pronunciations and definitions, and correct spelling. I'm not denying your answer but I'm not in agreement with other people's idea of why I did the wrong thing in the first place!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • RoseIsabella
    3 years ago

    Is this Hansberger? Are you branching out, Hansberger?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Hansberger
      3 years ago

      Whatever that means, my standards got me out of trouble, you never know, I might not be following the rules.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • my_life_my_way
    3 years ago

    Same but without the pseudo intellectual bullshit.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0