The Difference Between the Amoral and the Immoral

By ashew <ashmo28@hotmail.com>

Previously on this page, there was written an article regarding the "nonmoral."

Amoral is simply another way of saying "nonmoral." In fact, amoral simply means with no moral bearing. Amoral can describe those actions with no moral consequence or intention. Immoral, on the other hand, describes those actions with bad or harmful intent or consequences. Obviously moral would then describe the actions stemming from good intentions.

So, then what is the difference between the AMORAL and the IMMORAL? The difference lies in the intent or lack thereof. The immoral has a nasty intent. The amoral has no intentions.

To submit a comment, click here.


Lee Archie <larchie@philosophy.lander.edu>

The use of these words in ordinary language has been inconsistent and confusing. Your paper, I think, provides a bridge between the philosophical usage and the lexicographer's usage and solves the problems of both worlds. It's very insightful.

The notion of intention is quite difficult to explain, and most analysts try to avoid referring to intention. In this case, I think your paper is right on the mark. If a distinction is to be made between "amoral" and "immoral," then we must know the intention of a human being in a specific situation.

If I understand your paper correctly, then the following summary results:

(1) "Amoral" in dictionaries is sometimes defined with reference to value-free situations (neither moral nor immoral). This definition makes "amoral" a synonym of "nonmoral." Physics is amoral in this sense of the term.

(2) "Amoral" is also used (in philosophy) in contrast to nonmoral and immoral. "Nonmoral" actions would be those actions where moral categories (such a right and wrong) cannot be applied. This area would include nonintentional (but not necessarily unintentional) actions. I suspect then amoral would involve actions without concern or intention to moral consequences.

(3) Thus, "amoral" has two different senses. Ceteris paribus, taking a sip of water can be described as nonmoral as well as amoral in sense (1). If the water contains hemlock and the subject intentionally sips it with indifference to the wrongness of suicide, then the action would not be described as nonmoral but would be properly called amoral.

Is this analysis consistent with ashew's paper? I have a feeling there's a problem with my re-statement, but I can't see it now. BTW, will I have to revise the answers to the quiz at http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/moral_quiz.html ?


Michael T Tucker <tuckerm@greenwood.net>

This stuff still makes my head spin!


Leah <coco_c_007@hotmail.com>

Nonintentional? Unintentional? What's the difference. I know that unintentional behavior is behavior that is done without the intention of causing the specific circumstances that result from that action, but what is nonintentional? I'm confused.


Nichole Sanders <snk79@hotmail.com>

I should have read this before the quiz! Nice simple work. Straight to the point.


Anna C. Nance <eirendel@yahoo.com>

This paper is simple, to the point, and helpful.


Jamie Meadows <riojeepgrl>

Great paper, you've explained them simply, which helps me out.