Forum: Rants
Topic: Immoral vs. Amoral behavior
started by: Wolfguard

Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 22 2000,13:10
Immoral is to be against the morals of socity. Amoral is to be with out any morals.

Is it possible to be Amoral? Even if im a serial killer i have morals, they may be twisted but...

What do you think?


Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 22 2000,14:25
Since man is a moral being, it would be very hard to find someone who is ammoral, and they must be very sick indeed. There must be at least a twinge of concience in almost all of us when we do something wrong. And a person can be immoral while still following his own moral code, because each of us has our own morals and they are likely to differ slightly from the society accepted norm.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.


Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 22 2000,14:42
Man is not a moral being. Morals are learned by interacting with society. If a person lives his entire life alone with no human contact do you think he will have the same morals as you, if he has any at all?

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…


Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 22 2000,20:21
Well, i do agree that moral sense is strengthened by society, but i do believe that it is mostly an instinct.. (otherwise we never would have grown into a society on the first place)
Posted by Nero on Jun. 22 2000,20:47
i think everyone is immoral. we all do something that our society or some other society would not accept. i drink alcohol, muslims see that as immoral and a sin.

i don't think anyone could be lucid and ammoral. if you're nuts and you're on a down (i know a guy that's this way) and you fuck up some stuff, that could be ammoral. it was done with no conscience what so ever. and when they come out of the down they don't remember what they did, thus they weren't lucid (i'm sure you guys didn't need that spelled out, but it helps me to think). everyone has to have some scruple, even if it's only to justify their life to themselves.


Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 22 2000,21:32
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfguard:
Man is not a moral being. Morals are learned by interacting with society. If a person lives his entire life alone with no human contact do you think he will have the same morals as you, if he has any at all?


I'm sure he would have morals of some sort. Morals are definitely influenced a lot by society, but if you've ever gone through teenage years, you probably went through a stage where you questioned all of the societal norms and morals, and developed your own morals that differ slightly from those around you. Since man is very much a social being, anything imposed by society on man can be considered a part of his being. Without at least some occassional social interaction with members of our own species, most of us would go stark raving mad and who knows what would happen then.

But even a person who was raised completely free of society would develope a sense of what is right and wrong, I'd just about guarantee it. If not, how did we become moral people in the first place? There had to be some sort of an instigator.

While I don't pretend to know all the details of human nature, I do know that my personal moral code is not dependent on what society around me holds to be moral, and for the most part it is not a result of my upbringing, since I rejected most of the morals I saw as a kid and developed my own. I have a sense of what is right and wrong that disagrees with a lot of what others around me say and practice. And I am sure that it is different than yours.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.


Posted by The_Hiro on Jun. 23 2000,02:46
I'm going to have to agree with Hellraiser. I think it's pretty much pointless to say, "Isolate humans from society and you'll see they have no morals". Humans are inherently social animals - putting them in isolation removes them from their natural state of being.

WG, it seems to me that you're a Hobbesian. I used to be one, but I've changed my allegiances. I think it's pretty firmly established that we have social instincts; I don't think it's that far of a leap to say that we have some form of morality hard-wired into us. I don't think society would be very stable if coercion and force were the only means of keeping people in line.

I've already mentioned this book once before, but I'll mention it again. Robert Wright's "Moral Animal". A good book to check out since it talks about social instincts, innateness of morality, and why morality is an advantageous adaptation.


Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 23 2000,10:40
ok, you got me on this one.
WTF is a hobbesian?

Wolves are a social animal. Do they have the inteligence to form morals? Same can be said for ants.

society just kind of happened because a pack of animals has a better chance of survival. When we went from animal to "man" the pack became society.

BTW, this question came about from an argument in a bar. Some drunken idiot was arguing with another drunken idiot(me). He said he was "amoral". I told him that it was not possible because if he was he could not sit quietly and drink with the rest of us humans. The rest is a bit of a blur but...

Question remains, can a human be sane and amoral?

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…


Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 23 2000,14:21
What strikes me as odd is that if you let a human grow up on an island to see if they are amoral, that would be immoral.
Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 23 2000,22:09
To answer your question Wolfguard, the very definition of sanity assumes morality. "In one's right mind." You can't be considered sane if you don't at least have a semblance of morals. But even insane people can have morals.

As to the argument that man is not a moral being, morals are learned; consider language. Language is learned. Yet the instinct to verbalize is not. Perhaps it would be good to consider morals in the same way; you have the instinct to think morally, and society hones it to a point that allows you to interact with your fellow man in the most beneficial manner.

Or I could just be full of shit and not realize it. Gotta get my beauty sleep now, leave moral discussions till tomorrow.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.


Posted by Firefox on Jun. 24 2000,00:57
Can a person truly be ammoral? The way I see it, yes.

What makes us "us"? I think that most people would agree that the driving force behind what we do is our brains. I know that many people, especially those spiritually-inclined, feel that breaking us down into chemicals and science is sad, but as far as modern science sees it, that's what we are, right?

So, theroretically, would it not be possible for a person to be born completely absent of the area of the brain that makes them have certain morals?

And while on the topic, what are morals anyway? Morals are simply something that we pick up when we are growing up that are things that are inherently right or wrong to do. Nero said that different cultures and religions have different morals, which is true. Some cultures see things that we see as normal as being sinful or immoral. Does that make them wrong? Does that make us wrong?

Really, looking at it from this perspective, we are lucky we have developed morals in our society. Mind you, I think that if we hadn't, we would still be living in caves clubbing animals over the head with big rocks.

Yadda yadda yadda.

-FFox


Posted by Nero on Jun. 24 2000,14:41
if i could catch the animals i'd club them over the head with rocks.

do we know which part of the brain actually governs morality? if it's something we could do without, why don't we? based on absolutely no fact, i would guess that losing (or never having) a part of the brain that is controlled through the subconscious would effect much more than morality, thus they may not have the elements of the brain that make the rest of us human. they may have the body of a man, but the brain of jumbo the train flattened elephant.

------------------
It's a dog eat dog world; I'll do what I have to and let others argue whether it's right or not. Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes


Posted by The_Hiro on Jun. 24 2000,15:45
When it comes to moral reasoning, one part of the brain that seems to be fairly clearly involved is the prefrontal lobe. Read up on a guy called Phineas Gage (who lost part of his right frontal lobe(?) when an iron rod went through his head - he survived the accident), or better yet, a book by Antonio Damassio called "Descartes' Error".
Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 24 2000,15:46
For all we know about the brain, a brain with out morality centers might be as bad off as a body without blood. But we don't know enough about the brain yet to be able to surmise these types of things. Another thing is that the brain is so complex, for all we know morality might be spread throughout the whole brain much like memories and language.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.


Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.4 © 2006 Ikonboard