From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
|It has been suggested that this article be merged into Moral skepticism. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2013.|
Amorality is an absence of, indifference towards, or disregard for morality. Amorality is a feature of nature: chemistry, geology, biology do not identify morality in rocks, chemicals, or plant life.
Morality in humans and non-human animals is a subject of dispute among scientists and philosophers. If morality is intrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings either do not exist or are only deficiently human. If morality is extrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings can both exist and be fully human, and may be amoral either by nature or by choice.
Any entity that is not sapient may be considered categorically amoral. For example, a rock may be used (by rational agents) for good or bad purposes, but the rock itself is neither good nor bad.
Animals have long been thought to be amoral entities. However, research into the evolution of morality, including sociality and altruism in animals, has sparked new debate amongst many philosophers. Many animals display behavior that is analogous to human moral behavior, such as caring for the young, protecting kin, and sharing the spoils of the hunt. Generally speaking, if this behavior is a voluntary response to ethical norms, then animals do have morality; if animals are involuntarily following innate instinct, then they are amoral.
Human morality appears in adults and even children from a young age. However, some humans may be considered amoral. There is some debate as to whether the infant human being develops a moral sense—is moral education cultivated (from within) or implanted (from without)?
Humans may discard codes or systems of morality that have been purely socially constructed by their native cultures. If a rational human being can in any way override the capacity to establish notions of right and wrong, it is arguable that human beings have the ability to become amoral.
The narrator John Steinbeck's East of Eden suggests that Cathy Ames is born without a conscience.
The Joker in Alan Moore's Batman: The Killing Joke is portrayed not as immoral or misguided, but rather as amoral in spite of his madness. Further identifying his moral stance, the primary intent of his actions in this graphic novel is to show that anyone can succumb to or embrace madness after but one bad day, wholly independent of one's morality—or lack thereof. Making his amorality perhaps more complicated, however, The Clown Prince Of Crime is willing to let the Batman kill him for his most recent crimes—an action which perhaps suggest that the Joker retains a vestige of his former morals, adjudicated by the sincere tone in which he presents this offer to The Dark Knight. He implies that he has, in fact, truly decided to surrender himself to his fate: at that very moment he is not just tempting The Caped Crusader into committing murder in efforts to corrupt his moral codes, but genuinely seeking to end all the misery and corruption he spreads around him.