Morality, Immorality, & Amorality

[Dante]

Because I'm tired of repeating myself I'll just pretend that you didn't insert the 'subjective opinion' bit, and said 'logically wrong' rather than just 'wrong.' In which case yes, you have justified your statements amorally. Now perhaps you understand what it is.

Perhaps.

Of course I do not agree with all of them, nor their justifications, but that is not a prerequisite. You have proven yourself capable of justifying something amorally, whether correct or not. Now that you can do that here's what I am hoping will have happened:

A- You will have realised that amoral opinions are logical and capable of being emotional.

B- Thus you should be able to understand that all of my statements are amoral, or at least they are intended to be.

Has this happened?

[Sneakgab]

However, Dustscout, you do realize his error is very forgivable?

I myself made the same assumptions from the statement: Bush is wrong...

Now to waste you're time trying to make the rest of the board understand what you're saying enough to properly agree/disagree with you (Yes, there are even those who agree with you without fully understanding what you are saying)

[Dante]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. What I dislike is them putting words in my mouth and restructuring my arguments to suit their own counter-arguments.

[Wolf]

Dust, how come your system of reasoning can have two mutually exclusive and ideaologically opposite outcomes on the same issue?

[Dante]

You'll have to be a bit more specific than that, I'm not quite sure what you mean. And I'd hate to type out a reply only to find that I'd interpreted you incorrectly...

[nemafakei]

"I don't mind people disagreeing with me. What I dislike is them putting words in my mouth and restructuring my arguments to suit their own counter-arguments."

Why bother, then, replying to empr?

[Dante]

I know, but I hate an innate hatred of wilful idiocy and every post he writes is full of it. I find it very hard to resist attempting to point out the flaws.

Not that it does any good of course but I feel I have to try.

[Dante]

*Bump* Now that the worm is back lets see if we can wrap this up...

[GUNWOUNDS]

*Bump* Now that the worm is back lets see if we can wrap this up...

i thought you were

[Dante]

Since when were you contributing anything valuable? You spend all of your time repeating the arguments of those who are more capable than yourself. If I'm repeating myself it's because I don't think my points were beaten. Coming up with new stuff all the time just seems like an act of desperation, if that is happening.

I have answered Emprworm's point and to my eyes at least proven that it is perfectly possible to be amoral while still being emotional. I fail to see how not liking Bush somehow throws any doubt on my moral status; it's his turn to attempt to explain how it can.

As to Wolfwiz's question I did reply to it, I asked him to elucidate since I'm not sure I understood what he was asking.

Now if you're quite finished spamming up my thread here...

[Dante]

See what I mean? Completely useless.

[GUNWOUNDS]

See what I mean? Completely useless.

see what i mean?  completely repetitive

[GUNWOUNDS]

Since when were you contributing anything valuable? You spend all of your time repeating the arguments of those who are more capable than yourself. If I'm repeating myself it's because I don't think my points were beaten. Coming up with new stuff all the time just seems like an act of desperation, if that is happening.

I have answered Emprworm's point and to my eyes at least proven that it is perfectly possible to be amoral while still being emotional. I fail to see how not liking Bush somehow throws any doubt on my moral status; it's his turn to attempt to explain how it can.

As to Wolfwiz's question I did reply to it, I asked him to elucidate since I'm not sure I understood what he was asking.

Now if you're quite finished spamming up my thread here...

how many times have you spammed my threads with "i second that"  "i third that"  ... ad nauseum...

so you can dish it out but you cant take it eh?  .. thought so...

::)

[Dante]

So in other words you are not denying the worthlessness of your replies? If you don't like something, say so somewhere else. I for one am at least trying to be sensible. You, apparantly, are not.

[GUNWOUNDS]

you are just embarrassed cause empworm left you hanging in this thread... hanging with your idiotic ideas of amoralism..

wow you are right... those bullies at your school have warped you pretty bad....

[Dante]

*Sigh* I should really stop responding to this drivel but I just keep replying because I have this innate hatred of idiocy...

1) I am amoral. Prove to me that I am not.

2) I don't love violence, I just fail to see the bad side of it in most cases.

3) Here at least there is no facade. If there is one anywhere it's back at school.

4) I don't expect you to take anything seriously. I expect you to make worthless comment after worthless comment and thus far I have not been disappointed, though there is always a small spark of hope that I will be.

5) Emprworm is not patronising, he is failing. And you just can't stand the idea that one of your buddies has abandoned a thread because he can no longer keep up his argument, and so you step in and spam spam spam in the hopes of holding up a long-dead point.

6) Of course my personality is a defence mechanism, for a good reason. It's to protect me from idiots like you who think they know everything about me because I was deluded enough to think that maybe you could act maturely.

[Wolf]

I apologize for not making myself clear and taking so long to reply, Dust. Let me try to better articulate what I meant.

If you are amoral, you do not consider moral or immoral values in your decision making, correct? It seems to be strictly, "whatever is logically best at the time" sort of thing. Therefore, if, in one situation, it is logically beneficial to kill, but at another time it is logically unacceptable to kill, both are amoral positions? Since the positions are contradictory, there is no real set-definition for amorality other than that it goes with whatever is logically beneficial at the time, correct? This being said, on what criteria do amoral individuals make decisions?

[Dante]

Thank you, Wolfwiz. I was beginning to despair...

I try to make my decisions, for the most part, on logical grounds. However there will be instances when emotional grounds will overrule these and indeed some amoral people will forswear logic completely and live a hedonistic life according to what their emotions tell them to do.

Still, skipping past the various apparant contradictions and problems; yes, there is no set criteria for an amoral decision other than the fact that it cannot be morals-based. This does mean that in different situations, different conclusions may be reached. This is not a problem for me, as I feel that having a rule for all situations is far too inflexible to be practical.

I do feel that a "whatever is logically best at the time" approach is the most sensible as it is the most flexible. But as there are different moral theories there are also different amoral theories. Someone else might work out (logically) that killing is wrong, and thus adapt it as a logical, rather than a moral rule. In this respect they would say 'killing is wrong' and stick to the rule, no matter what the situation.

This is a bit too moral-like to me. It's too inflexible, too black and white; even logic has its downside. I see the whole issue of morality as subjective. There are no absolutes, only logic has absolutes. But again some people use this to form an objective moral theory based on logic. That makes no sense to me. Different situations are, by their very nature, different; and require seperate thought.

For example, someone may follow the rule 'do not kill,' either for logical or moral reasons. They run across a situation where it is beneficial to kill, and they are stuck. Their rule has been to their disadvantage. Running across a situation where it is not beneficial to kill, they are served well.

But someone following the opposite rule (again, for either moral or logical reasons) 'kill when you can' would fall foul of the second situation after benefiting from the first.

It is only the subjective people who follow no rules but work out what is best at the time who can benefit from both situations. The criteria they use to work out what is 'best' could be morality-based, or it could be logically based, or maybe even emotionally based. Both of these latter two are amoral, and though the decisions they make could be contradictory, they apply to different situations and so that's alright. Different situations call for different measures.

[Wolf]

I agree that an amoral approach makes sense, if only in regards to politics and economics. Politically, once a government begins making moral judgements and moral decisions, a rule is set in stone. A political statement such as, "War is never wrong" is a moral judgement. You can still be anti-war, but for logical and practical reasons, rather than moral ones.

Is that a good example?

[Dante]

It's never a good idea for a government to get moral. Then they start imposing on everyone who thinks differently.

More so than usual that is.

Besides which, a rule like 'war is never wrong' would be faulted in a situation where war would be wrong. Rules don't work, I think. They just can't be beneficial in every situation.

[Wolf]

Remain unbeaten? Well, if that isn't an amoral judgement, I don't know what is!

[Dante]

Well that and I was hoping to provoke some kind of response without continuously bumping this thread up again and again. I don't think my points have been dealt with adequately, so I remain unbeaten. :) 

[Wolf]

Well, I think its rational to say that amorality should be applied to politics. Since, then, that keeps any personal judgements out of what is a public policy. However, this of course means you cannot be for or against things based on their moral righteousness. Basically, amoral-politics limits you to doing whatever is economically or practically beneficial. I mean, without morals, by what grounds do you measure "good" and "bad" policy?

[Dante]

That which brings money = good. That which saves money = good. That which preserves government = good. Here we get an inkling of why I'm an autocrat as well.  ;) 

[Wolf]

So, where do you stand on the war with Iraq, for a contemporary example?