Immoral vs. Amoral

This is a revisit to the earlier "good vs. evil" blog entry. It occurred to me that "evil" is somewhat simplistic in describing the behavior, and more importantly, the ethical motivations, of those who fall into that category.

 The "immoral" are those who have moral standards and ethics, probably fairly close to the "moral", but who, for whatever reason, choose to ignore them. Most likely the reason is because morals get in the way of getting them what they want: money, power, sex, etc. They either cannot achieve these goals morally, or simply find it easier and more convenient to do so immorally. If people get hurt, too bad for them. That’s life. If the "easy" thing and the "right" thing were always the same, we would always be angels and there would be no problem (at least from those who might otherwise be immoral). The issues and problems arise when the "easy" way is not the right way. That’s when moral choices have to be made, and which choices are made determines our moral guilt or innocence.

 The "amoral" are those without any moral standards at all. They do not know right from wrong. Left to their own devices, they do as they please without any hesitation, guilt, or shame. The only thing stopping them from committing crimes is concern over "retribution from authority figures" (to paraphrase Beldar, the Conehead father). The extreme example is the Mob assassin who cold-bloodedly kills his target and then goes off to lunch without so much as a second thought. Not all amoral people are this dangerous, but they are certainly more dangerous and less trustworthy than the immoral, since they have no internal standards to control their behavior.

 The major difference is shame and guilt. While the amoral are immune to this and cannot be shamed into behaving "good" – criminal laws and vengeance from their victims are the only restraint they obey – the immoral can sometimes be affected. Criticize an immoral person and the likely result – assuming they intend to continue their behavior anyway – is resentment. Do so to an amoral person and they will simply ignore you. Any "guilt" or "remorse" they display is insincere, designed only to placate those unexplicably bound and motivated by these alien ideas called "morals."

 Which is not to say that the "moral" are perfect. Ultimately the temptations we face in our lives overcome our resistance and get the best of us – some more than others. But our guilt affects us and drives us to resist, to some extent, and ideally take full responsibility for our mistakes and failings. We will sin, we will fail, despite our best efforts, but the end result will inevitably be far better, for us and all concerned, than if we made no effort at all or worse – as the amoral do – never even cared in the first place.

 There may be hope for the immoral. They may tire of their ways, grow wracked with guilt, or otherwise choose to abandon immorality. They have some frame of reference, some moral state of grace to which to return, that they recognize as good, however far from it they may have strayed over the years – which is the whole point of the parable of the prodigal son.

 I’m less sure there is hope for the amoral. They simply have not developed moral standards, and I don’t see what would cause them to suddenly develop morals and a conscience at any point in their lives. It’s not there inside them to return to...it simply doesn’t exist, it wasn’t created at the time it was supposed to be established inside them. "Right" and "wrong" are vague terms with little meaning, concepts which other people understand and care about, but not them.