Immoral & Amoral
Dengan nama Allah Yang Maha Pemurah lagi Maha Mengasihani.
Hey…me again?! hahah..of course lah..dah tentu this is my BLOG. So, ehmm..today post of wisdom will be the different between ” Immoral & Amoral ” actually this post is my term paper for PHILOSOPHY PPY0015 for second semester in Foundation In Law. Start from learning this “Philosophy” things, i’m getting to love philosophy it self and i’m getting to love this “Law” things. [ Tak Kenal Maka Tak Cinta ] right?! So…enjoy!
Morality can be defined as the concept of human ethics which consists the matter of good or evil and right or wrong, which within the 3 context such as individual conscience, systems of principles and judgment which normally appear within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist or philosophical community and the conduct of the behaviors. Morality also can be defined as beliefs and practices related to the notion of right conduct or good character. Most philosophers make some sort of distinction between morality and ethics, although the different can be subtle and difficult to disentangle. One popular distinction defines morality as a set of principles of right conduct, while ethics is defines as the study of moral judgment. On this conception, a person may have morality but have no interest on ethics.
For example, one’s morality would be a more-or-less coherent set of codes, such as “Do not lie” or “Helps others whenever possible” Ethics, on the other hand, would be inquiry into why those moral principles are valid and whether or not they are binding to everyone. In everyday language; however the concepts of morality and ethics often used interchangeably. At the heart of any conception of morality are notions of right conduct. Most moralities also include notions of Virtue, the good life, or happiness. To have morality or to be moral is to have some sense that certain actions are better than others or that certain kinds of people are more virtuous than others. Similarly, most moralities have a notion of a well lived or desirable life.
Morality is a broad concept covering many differing, and sometimes conflicting, belief systems. Eastern morality for example, is very different that Western morality. Within a culture there may be a unified morality, or what is more likely, the culture may exist in a state of moral pluralism. Small, preliterate tribes often exhibit an extremely unified vision of what is rights and wrong. In contrast, industrialized nations are usually morally pluralistic with persons and groups with quite divergent moralities coexisting under one law.
Philosophers have long sought a proper definition of morality without reaching agreement. The ancient Greeks, for example, typically conceived of morality in terms of harmonious character. The Judeo-Christian moral tradition cats commandments. Thomas Hobbes, an influential English philosopher, argued that morality was based on social contract designed for self-protection. David Hume countered that morality consisted in emotional approval, or moral sentiment, of people or actions. Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential oral thinkers of all time, defined morality in terms of rules ascertained by reason, treeing the importance of willing what is right. Utilitarian in turn defined morality as that which contributes to the greatest social good, thus viewing it as teleological or as a means to and. Existentialist philosophers offered an alternative vision of morality as freedom or self creation. Along with problems attending the proper definitions of morality comes challenges regarding the desirability of morality.
Why be moral? In a famous passage from Plato’s The Republic, Glaucon argues in opposition to Socrates that justice is only a fool would be just if he or she could get away with being unjust. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle argue that morality consists in virtue and that virtue is mainly or completely its own reward. Others argue that we should be moral because we have been commanded to do so or because it is rational. Still others maintain that morality is a means to the ends of happiness.
Moral it self divided into two categories which is moral subjectivity and moral objectivity. Moral subjectivity means, moral judgments are nothing but expressions of, or about, the individual judges own attitudes with their thoughts, feelings, personal opinions and so on. It is also a form of moral relativism which called the “individual relativism”, since it conceives morality as being relative to the individual.
A meta-ethical theory is a view about the nature of ethics such as normative moral theory, which is a view about which actions are rights, wrong, good and bad. Some say moral subjectivists conceive moral judgment such as “it’s wrong to torture hamsters for fun” as like aesthetic judgment such as “Rodin’s The Thinker is brilliant”, “Strawberry ice-cream is my favorite” or “Peter Andre is a dream-boat”
This is the sample of arguments that might be useful on order to get a clear idea about the moral subjectivism:
Consider the following little discourse.
Mr. Bigot: Homosexuality is wrong.
Brian: Mr. Bigot said that homosexuality is wrong.
My statement seems obviously right – I just reported what Mr. Bigot said. But it’s hard to see how this could be true on a subjectivist theory. Normally, when I say S said that p, what I say is true just in case the proposition expressed by p is a proposition that S expressed. For instance, if I say you said I am an idiot, that’s true just in case you said that Brian is an idiot, not just if you self-ascribe idiocy. Generally, indexical in speech reports get their meaning from the reporter’s setting, not from the speaker’s setting. The subjectivist thinks that ‘wrong’ is just another indexical. So my report should mean “Mr. Bigot said that I disapprove of homosexuality.” But he said no such thing.
If “Homosexuality is wrong” just means “I disapprove of homosexuality” then I should be able to say the following thing in response to Mr. Bigot.
When Mr. Bigot said, “Homosexuality is wrong” he spoke truly, even though homosexuality is not wrong. After all, Mr. Bigot does disapprove of homosexuality, so by subjectivist lights the first clause is true.
And homosexuality is not wrong, so the second clause is true. But then the sentence is true, even though native speakers would naturally take it to be a contradiction.
Moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. Models of objective morality may be atheistic, monotheistic, or pantheistic. The moral codes may stem from reason, from the divine, or from a combination of the two. These various systems differ as to the nature of the objective morality, but agree on its existence. It is this diversity between codes of objective morality, and the seemingly endless debates between people over irreconcilably different claims to objective morality that lead many to reject the concept entirely, in favor of subjective morality. Systems of objective morality are seen as proceeding from many sources, including the divine in the case of religion, the reason and the natural world, in the case of many secular philosophies, example utilitarianism or the categorical imperative of Kant and the reason the divine in concert, as the case of Thomism.
Many codes of objective morality hold that moral codes originate in some divine entity, either God or cosmic forces such as karma. Many systems of objective morality hold that humans are bound to external standards of morality or immorality, and are rewarded and punished insofar as they attain to those standards.
- Islam holds that Allah rewards and punishes human beings through heaven and hell, based on the morality or immorality of their actions on Earth.
- Hinduism holds that one’s objectively moral or immoral acts have corresponding effects on one’s karma, which has a direct effect on the quality of one’s next life. One is therefore rewarded and punished by the universe for one’s good or bad actions.
Normative ethical systems can generally be broken down into three categories: deontological, teleological and virtue ethics. The first two are considered deontic or action-based theories of morality because they focus entirely upon the actions which a person performs.
When actions are judged morally right based upon their consequences, we have teleological or consequentialist ethical theory which refers to those moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action.
Thus, on a consequentialist account, a morally right action is an action which produces good consequences. More formally, consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that consequences are more important than any other normative criteria. Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from deontological ethics, which emphasizes the type of action instead of its consequences, and virtue ethics, which focuses on the character and motivations of the agent. When actions are judged morally right based upon how well they conform to some set of duties, we have a deontological ethical theory.
Whereas these first two systems focus on the question “What should I do?” the third asks an entirely different question: “What sort of person should I be?” With this we have a virtue-based ethical theory – it doesn’t judge actions as right or wrong but rather the character of the person doing the actions. The person, in turn, makes moral decisions based upon which actions would make one a good person.
Deontological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. Thus, in order to make the correct moral choices, we simply have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist which regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally.
Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on the consequences which any action might have (for that reason, they are often referred to as consequentalist moral systems, and both terms are used here). Thus, in order to make correct moral choices, we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices.
When we make choices which result in the correct consequences, then we are acting morally; when we make choices which result in the incorrect consequences, then we are acting immorally.
Virtue-based ethical theories place much less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity.
These character traits will, in turn, allow a person to make the correct decisions later on in life. Virtue theorists also emphasize the need for people to learn how to break bad habits of character, like greed or anger. These are called vices and stand in the way of becoming a good person.
Amorality is the quality of having no concept of right or wrong. “Amorality” or “amoralism” may also refer to a lack of believe in the absolute existence of any moral laws. Amoral person is the person that cannot possess ethical notions at all and cannot behave in a manner way. Amoral person reject the applicability of moral to their own lives. Unlike immoral person, who acts contrary to moral norms, an amoral person may simply reject the validity of moral standards. Some may do this consciously by proclaiming that moral standards are irrelevant or pernicious. In other cases, people may be called amoral when they act as through moral standards do not matter.Because those who are indifferent often carry negative associations.
This latter may I turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. People can maintain do want he or she want to do as he or she likes and let others do the same if they too desire, without taking this into a general principle as so imperative or order would be require, this is because, whoever says that which only expresses his personal view or informs about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent and accepted. An amoralist might also make a stronger statement that moral systems are arbitrary and unfound on the whole, which is epistemic or anthropological.
“Immoral” refers to a persons or the person behavior it self, which consciously within the scope of morality but does not abide by it edicts. For an example a thief would not admit that stealing is wrong, in the other hand it is not simply because he would not others to steal things from him. He would not find that “stealing” is pleasant or convenient and so on. The thief would quite agree that stealing is immoral but he is trying to excuse his act of “stealing” and put the burden and blame onto others, and say that he had no choice and lots more excuses. In a simple and straight forwards statement, “amoral” and “immoral” are used interchangeably.