| content |
 |
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (August 2008) |
 |
This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (August 2008) |
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) |
Amorality is the quality of existence that moral right and wrong (or good and evil) are incompatible. The terms "amorality" or "amoralism" may also refer to the belief that the concepts of moral right and wrong do not have meaning, or the absence of a belief in the absolute existence of any moral laws.
Amorality is distinct from immorality, although in common use the terms "amoral" and "immoral" are often used interchangeably despite significant difference in the meaning of the terms. An amoral person denies the existence of morality, whereas an immoral person believes in the existence of morality but chooses not to recognize it as binding or intentionally defies it. An immoral person who violates a certain moral code may still believe in the underlying truth of that moral code.
Amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of upbringing (e.g. antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code. This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative would require. Making this pronouncement expresses the personal preference of the speaker, or informs about the way he is going to act, and is thus consistent. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. Such principled amoralism is present in the philosophy of Max Stirner, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Hobbes, Daniel Quinn and to a degree the Marquis de Sade.
Immoral behaviour is self-consciously within the scope of morality but does not abide by its edicts. A thief will not deny that stealing is immoral, but would perhaps attempt to deflect the blame or offer excuses in order to justify his actions, either to other or to himself. An immoral individual might even derive pleasure from violating the believed moral law. Essentially, immoral individuals believe that certain things are wrong, but disregard this information, possibly resulting in feelings of guilt. An amoral person believes that the concepts of right and wrong are irrelevant, with one view consisting of the idea that right and wrong are subjective concepts, and determined entirely by personal preference. Thus, guilt is meaningless in an objective sense.
