is to be amoral a form of immorality

[pam699]

is to be amoral - ie not concerned with good and bad-a form of immorality ie to do bad

an example scientists claim they are amoral when doing their research ie they are in these quest of objective knowledge and not concerned with any moral question ie they claim to be amoral
but is this amoral position in fact a form of immorality ie doing bad

example if i drive my car into a group of school children not being concerned with good or bad ie amoral some might call me a psychopath and acting immoraly

is all activity we do coloured by morality or are some acts and bvehavour outside morality and just amoral

so is amoral a form of immorality
and are scientists who hold this position acting immorally

[The Bacon Guy]

Depends which particular morality you subscribe to. There's no point in asking absolute questions with regards to morality: it's all subjective and nothing can be proved.

[pam699]

yes but i take it u have a morality so in terms of your morality what is your answerr to the question

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 is to be amoral - ie not concerned with good and bad-a form of immorality ie to do bad

To look at things seperate from the moral issues, to me, is not in and of itself bad. There is a difference between amoral analysis and immoral actions. immorality is in direct dichtomous conflict with certain forms of morality, while in amoral views or judgement it is deemed irrelevant to the topic being studied in the sense that no modes or viewpoints on morality influence it.

Take for example, evolution. Scientists study evolution- if they asked the question "Is evolution bad?", they would most likely not gain any true topic on the subject. In this sense, thier moral questioning has no real reward or impact, and thus they avoid it. However, some scientists od indeed apply morality to thier resultign inventions and actions- the majority of scientists out there, for example, hold human life to be of some worth and thus would most likely not be found attempting to develop a super virus.

So are scientists doing something "bad"? No, they are studying things that are amoral, not doing things that are immoral. There is a very large difference.

an example scientists claim they are amoral when doing their research ie they are in these quest of objective knowledge and not concerned with any moral question ie they claim to be amoral but is this amoral position in fact a form of immorality ie doing bad

No. Read my above response. The analysis is amoral while in terms of the application morality is indeed put to use. In fact, there are many ethical restrictions being engrained into today's modern science fields- one of the more notable ones being psychology and it's patient treatment laws.

example if i drive my car into a group of school children not being concerned with good or bad ie amoral some might call me a psychopath and acting immoraly

That is not the same as what the scientists are doing, so I do not see how it is in any way analogous to the situation. Scientists look at things that are amoral, and thus in order to understand they are not concerned with the morality issues the existence of this thing brings up within certain ethical frameworks- usually, the morality comes into the application and experimentation realms i.e. that areas that actually effect society and humanity in a profound manner.

is all activity we do coloured by morality or are some acts and bvehavour outside morality and just amoral

All activity we do is colored by morality, however the same cannot be said of other nonhuman constructs- they are not concerned nor affected by moral issues in the same way humans are. That is why, in order to understand them, one cannot look at them in a moral way. For example- you cannot gain knowledge of an atom by asking yourself "What is GOOD about this atom?"

so is amoral a form of immorality and are scientists who hold this position acting immorally

Amoral is a quality of certain objects and modes of study. What it is not is a mode of behavior.

Now, a question for you- how can morality exist without meaning or value? Why are you even asking such a question when it is based on something that is foundationally contradictory with your other premises?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: pam yes but i take it u have a morality so in terms of your morality what is your answerr to the question

Being amoral isn't harming anyone, so it is not, in my view, immoral.

[Zinkovich]

Bacon Guy, you just summed up the most important part of what I was trying to say in my last post within a single, simple, direct line.

A point for you, sir. :)

[pam699]

so a scientist working on a gammabeta alpha bomb is not acting immoraliy even though he knows bombes are used to kill people he is just doing amoral research u say
so can i disect living babeies in my basement because i am not a psychopath but doing amoral research into how much pain babneies can stand untill they fiant in agoney-bear in mind it has to done on live babies for valid research
am i different to the bomb making scientits -lest he is spared the sight of the victims to his amoral research

[The Bacon Guy]

You didn't ask the question of dissecting live babies; you asked if being amoral was immoral. Simply being amoral is not, in itself, harmful.

[Zinkovich]

You didn't answer my question- how can you be concerned with western ethics if western linguistics(and thus western reality, according to you) is meaningless by your estimation, and thus devoid of value?

If you asked Colin Dean I am sure he would say your ethical judgement is setting up a poststructuralist illusion in your mind.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You didn't ask the question of dissecting live babies; you asked if being amoral was immoral. Simply being amoral is not, in itself, harmful.

and..

Amoral CAN be immoral.. just as amoral CAN be moral.

The definition of amoral does not require either, but also allows either.

It's like saying, is being an atheist immoral?

Atheist CAN be immoral.. just as atheists CAN be moral.

The definition of atheist does not require either, but also allows either.

[pam699]

so lullaby chaniner u r saying to all those scientist who proclaim thet are acting amorally
that some amoral acts can be immoral so watch out

[pam699]

to zincovich if u watch this post sharply u will see every one ending in self-contradiction or meaninglessness morality is a great topic to se clearly the meaninglesness of all views -just a covert demonstration of deans claims for the sharp witted-which u r congradulations