• ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    Studying Ortega's Revolt of the Masses, I stumbled on a curious question for ethicists:

    Is there such a thing as amorality?

    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
  • Jackson
    938
    Is there such a thing as amorality?ZzzoneiroCosm

    Not every action we take is about morality.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    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.
  • Jackson
    938
    But considering that the time you spend just sitting there could be invested in helping other persons iZzzoneiroCosm

    Why do I have to help other persons?
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    Why do I have to help other persons?Jackson

    You don't. But the notion is at the heart of morality and ethics.
  • Jackson
    938
    You don't. But the notion is at the heart of morality and ethics.ZzzoneiroCosm

    Christianity? What else?
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    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.
  • Jackson
    938
    But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so,javi2541997

    Not following. How do they impose?
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    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?
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    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.
  • Jackson
    938
    some individual records me not helping a homeless man in the train.javi2541997

    What is that person doing to help?
  • Jackson
    938
    morals and ethics are centered on our relationships with other people.ZzzoneiroCosm

    Yes, but helping others in not inherent.
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    What is that person doing to help?Jackson

    Nothing, but he is destroying my integrity and honor.
  • Jackson
    938
    Nothing, but he is destroying my integrity and honor.javi2541997

    I do not think so.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    It was just the example I used. You're free to substitute an example more in line with your view of the world.
  • Jackson
    938
    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.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    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:
  • Jackson
    938
    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.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    Interested in the thread. Not in your point. Cheers. :smile:
  • Jackson
    938


    I'll probably ignore you from now on.
  • L'éléphant
    651


    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.
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    smoking in a closed room with other people — L'éléphant

    Mea culpa! A thousand apologies.
  • frank
    10.9k
    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.
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    amorality — ZzzoneiroCosm

    Aristotle's potential-actual distinction seems important.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    2.1k
    Feel free to expand on that. :smile:
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    Feel free to expand on that. :smile:ZzzoneiroCosm

    I'd rather not! Thank you for asking.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.