Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Amorality and Apathy

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 9:32:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
An amoral society is one characterized by apathy. For, if a group of people hold nothing sacred and likewise nothing profane, a spectrum of values (from that which is most superior to that which is most inferior) is lost; and, all values tend toward equivalency. If no values are greater than any others, nothing has any significance, or meaning; life becomes uneventful and a significant degree of apathy sets in.

In reality, the extreme of apathy in all areas of life is quite remote. Most people find value in either materialism or spirituality. This in no way means one is completely devoid of the other, but in saying people place value on materialism is not at all saying they are apathetic or amoral; however, the materialist tends to place greater value on that which is limited in space and time; and, the spiritualist tends to look beyond the finitude of things and sees value even in the unknown.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 10:25:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 9:32:34 PM, s-anthony wrote:
An amoral society is one characterized by apathy. For, if a group of people hold nothing sacred and likewise nothing profane, a spectrum of values (from that which is most superior to that which is most inferior) is lost; and, all values tend toward equivalency. If no values are greater than any others, nothing has any significance, or meaning; life becomes uneventful and a significant degree of apathy sets in.

In reality, the extreme of apathy in all areas of life is quite remote. Most people find value in either materialism or spirituality. This in no way means one is completely devoid of the other, but in saying people place value on materialism is not at all saying they are apathetic or amoral; however, the materialist tends to place greater value on that which is limited in space and time; and, the spiritualist tends to look beyond the finitude of things and sees value even in the unknown.

Amorality does not necessarily constitute apathy. Morality only speaks to the rightness or wrongness of an action. There may still be a sense of value and a sense of preference. The social contract theorist (in conjunction with moral nihilism) may say that there are no acts which are right or wrong, that morality is a human construct. However, he may still value a good life, and prefer a peaceful society because it makes his life better. He may place a higher value on security than freedom and thus choose to be subjected by laws of a society. That doesn't mean he is apathetic to the plight of others or himself, it simply means he doesn't see an inherent rightness or wrongness in moral acts. He may still ascribe values of better or worse, but can't ascribe values of right and wrong.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:57:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Amorality does not necessarily constitute apathy. Morality only speaks to the rightness or wrongness of an action. There may still be a sense of value and a sense of preference. The social contract theorist (in conjunction with moral nihilism) may say that there are no acts which are right or wrong, that morality is a human construct. However, he may still value a good life, and prefer a peaceful society because it makes his life better. He may place a higher value on security than freedom and thus choose to be :subjected by laws of a society. That doesn't mean he is apathetic to the plight of others or himself, it simply means he doesn't see an inherent rightness or wrongness in moral acts. He may still ascribe values of better or worse, but can't ascribe values of right and wrong.

In choosing a better (or greater) value over a worse (or lesser) value, what makes the better value the right value? If neither value is right nor wrong, why not choose the worse value?

One may say values are not inherent but rather garnered from the collective. This is in effect saying an individual apart from his, or her, collective does not prefer one thing over another. Now, I must say an individual may have values that differ from the collective's just as he, or she, may have biological traits most others don't share; however, just because a value is particular does not in any way mean it's extrinsic
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 7:24:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:57:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Amorality does not necessarily constitute apathy. Morality only speaks to the rightness or wrongness of an action. There may still be a sense of value and a sense of preference. The social contract theorist (in conjunction with moral nihilism) may say that there are no acts which are right or wrong, that morality is a human construct. However, he may still value a good life, and prefer a peaceful society because it makes his life better. He may place a higher value on security than freedom and thus choose to be :subjected by laws of a society. That doesn't mean he is apathetic to the plight of others or himself, it simply means he doesn't see an inherent rightness or wrongness in moral acts. He may still ascribe values of better or worse, but can't ascribe values of right and wrong.



In choosing a better (or greater) value over a worse (or lesser) value, what makes the better value the right value? If neither value is right nor wrong, why not choose the worse value?

One may say values are not inherent but rather garnered from the collective. This is in effect saying an individual apart from his, or her, collective does not prefer one thing over another. Now, I must say an individual may have values that differ from the collective's just as he, or she, may have biological traits most others don't share; however, just because a value is particular does not in any way mean it's extrinsic

Preference is different from right or wrong. In moral nihilism, an act is better or worse like someone might say strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream. That doesn't make strawberry ice cream right, it simply means the agent has a preference for that flavor.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2015 9:01:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Preference is different from right or wrong. In moral nihilism, an act is better or worse like someone might say strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream. That doesn't make strawberry ice cream right, it simply means the agent has a preference for that flavor.

Saying something is preferred by one or preferred by many only goes to indicate the number of people for which it is right. If you were asked to guess as to which ice cream flavor an individual likes, your answer would be considered right or wrong only as it corresponds or fails to correspond to the individual's preference. "Rightness" or "wrongness" is not defined by the significance of a decision but by the decision's outcome.