Mattus wrote:My mother always told me not to lie. Apparently it makes Jesus cry. I'm not sure what other moral compass to go by. I don't like to be thought of as a liar, I guess. So I don't lie to obtain a sickie. It's not worth squandering the goodwill with my employer. So perhaps that's self interest, rather than respecting the morality of good. On the other hand, it kinda feels wrong, but perhaps that's my mother-Jesus whispering in my ear again.
Let's look at this idea from a different angle.
I've noticed that as we get deeper into the discussion of corporations, those that were engaged in discussion have left the discussion, but the view count suggest that they have not stopped reading the discussion. I think we can speculate somewhat fairly that the reason for this has a great deal to do with their lack of confidence with the topic. Who teaches morality aside from theists and academics, both of which requires of the moral agent an active pursuit of the topic... you must attend church or sign on to subjects on morality if you are to have an appreciation of what it means to be an moral agent. More rarely are those who will seek out the topic as a form of self education... but this, I wish to emphasis is rare indeed.
This means that the those of us who do not practice religion and/or have not studied morality, have no compass with which to guide their decisions beyond a nebulous feeling which they cannot fathom but trust nonetheless and will often attribute to common sense... although I note that Mattus in admitting to his nebulous feelings did not extend that to mean common sense.
Indeed, there was a distinct lack of understanding on how to identify a moral or amoral act with boxy and aia seeking to give intent first billing when it is the second consideration. In there minds it seems, moral and amoral behaviour is ever present with every action so that only intent matters. And they are not alone in thinking that way... yet that way of thinking is completely wrong. Still, how can you know it is wrong if no one is actually teaching the masses what morality is and is not? So, if we've learnt anything from this endeavour it is that not all actions by humans are moral or amoral actions even though they may have intent... I can smash to smithereens an insignificant rock and that act is neither moral or amoral.
Mattus highlights another rather interesting trait in humanity... that of confusing habit with morality. It has been his habit not to lie because he was taught that Jesus cries when he lies. On learning this initially and having that learning reinforced during his childhood, his opting not to lie was moral behaviour. But in his adult years, it has become habitual behaviour so much so that he will apply it to human and non human entities in equal measure, without due consideration. Habitual behaviour is not by necessity moral behaviour even though that habit is, when viewed through theism, good. Moral behaviour is considered behaviour. It is the act of weighing up up the various elements and consequences of the action before the action takes place. That Mattus does not think to lie is because he has been socialized not to lie and not through any moral imperative not to lie. This is true of most of us, myself included.
We can know this better when faced with a circumstance whereby the telling of a truth would cause more harm that good. Should a doctor tell a terminal patient who is tragically frightened of death that they will die sooner than they think, should the prognosis be requested by that patient, when the telling of this truth requested will cause nothing more than great psychological suffering and reduce the quality of that life? I'm sure most of us agree that the answer is... no, the doctor should not tell that patient the truth even though they have asked for it. It would be amoral, because it causes more harm than good.
But not everyone thinks that way... some people... very few people would be adamant that the truth is the truth and must be told irrespective of the consequences. This is not moral thinking however... morality recognises the intellectual and the emotional intelligence of a being and a circumstance in which that being is presented. Indeed those who seek for absolutes in morality are showing a distinct lack of emotional intelligence to say the least.
So where does this rambling bring us to in our quest for the amorality of badness. Well, we've learned to distinguish between habitual behaviour and moral behaviour... that is, between the unconscious and conscious act respectfully. We understand that morality and amorality lack absolute, dogmatic dictates. We can appreciate somewhat the need for considering the emotional as well as intellectual circumstance. We know that amoral acts are against natural beings and not artificial ones.
What we haven't explored however is the nature of amorality... what makes badness bad and more specifically in the the case of this discussion... amoral?
I contend that many people would struggle with this because they are raised on theistic morality, so that, that which is bad is bad because it is amoral and because God says so... because it would make Jesus cry... because Mum or Dad or some other authority working from a theistic framework says so. Badness then is not something humans give much thought to... the justification for most is an appeal to authority... God says so.
That doesn't tell us much about the nature of badness though and why it is therefore amoral now does it.
