Amorality Does Not Exist - Ortega
Studying Ortega's Revolt of the Masses, I stumbled on a curious question for ethicists:
Is there such a thing as amorality?
[quote=Ortega - Revolt of the Masses, p. 189]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.[/quote]
Is there such a thing as amorality?
[quote=Ortega - Revolt of the Masses, p. 189]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.[/quote]
Comments (27)
Not every action we take is about morality.
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.
Why do I have to help other persons?
You don't. But the notion is at the heart of morality and ethics.
Christianity? What else?
You don’t. But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so, you would be amoral.
Not following. How do they impose?
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?
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.
What is that person doing to help?
Yes, but helping others in not inherent.
Nothing, but he is destroying my integrity and honor.
I do not think so.
I did not agree with you.
Why start a thread if you have no interest. Waste of time.
I'll probably ignore you from now on.
Quoting 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.
Mea culpa! A thousand apologies.
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.
Aristotle's potential-actual distinction seems important.
I'd rather not! Thank you for asking.