You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Characters and Our Character - The Etymology of Morality
Interesting and it fits into an argument I've made about there cannot amoral behavior. If morality is a behavior or a behavioral quality, amorality would necessarily preclude behavior, or it would require an absence of behavior. Behavior is either moral or immoral. There is no such thing as moral neutrality. Upvoted & resteemed (as usual- I'm going to stop saying that, you can just assume it lol)
Hehe, thanks. Indeed in general, but in trying to specify things more precisely, it can apply, such as someone who doesn't care about morality, will be acting amorally in their own considerations, but thats just the subjective view of themselves, not the reality.
Anything in neutral, is a fraction on the side of the current condition. If immorality persists, then neutrality enables immorality to persist and acts as part of the flow and continuance of that condition. If morality is the majority of the condition, then that gets persisted more through the neutral that just lets things be as they are. It's like ride the wave, go with the flow. Neutrality doesn't actively create a positive or negative, but is part of persisting the general condition, no matter which way it goes. Hope that makes sense to you.
It makes sense, BUT, If neutrality reinforces the prevailing condition by inaction, doesn't that constitute an action (either moral or immoral) therefore it does create a positive or negative.
Not necessarily. Only the active force, positive or negative, will create that polarity into existence. The neutral perpetuates its existence by allowing it to continue, as opposed to taking up the opposite polarity and removing power from the current polarity, then they actively engage in one or the others. It's like +1 and -1 polarity, and the neutral adds like 0.0001 to either side, and acts as an action towards one by default of that being the current condition. And yes, in our society that applies as people actually engaging in the creation of the polarity, instead of simply being neutral. Abstractly, it's not required to do an action, but in reality the inaction towards one polarity results in a default to the the current polarity by a small amount to allow it to continue.
The fallacy of "those who don't stop evil are just as evil as those who do evil" is wrong. Inaction to not do something, is not an action to do something. Not doing evil, or not stopping evil, is not creating evil either, no matter what anyone wants to believe. Allowing evil to persist (neutral inaction) is different from actively creating evil (active action).
Maybe. But it can also be argued that by doing nothing about evil creates a perception that evil is acceptable therefore encouraging others (who might not have under different circumstances)to do evil thereby actively adding to the problem. (This can go on forever)
Yes, but you're not creating evil. Need to identify behavior to identify what is being created.