>>443452
>moral nihilism
good and bad don't exist
>amorality
not beholden to morality
>immorality
bad

>>443527
>not beholden to morality
Doesn't acknowledging morality exist but not following it make you immoral?

>>443562
That's a subject for debate.

Unthinking beasts are generally considered to be amoral, but incapable of immorality. They can't do good or bad.

>>443581

das raysis

>>443581
But "unthinking beasts" are not aware of morals. I'm saying if someone acknowledges that morals exist but disregards them or is not beholden by them that person is immoral and not amoral.

>>443562
>>443581
Stop confusing immoral and amoral, you guys aren't even discussing the same thing.
An Immoral person is someone who knows good from evil but chooses evil, an amoral person knows not the difference between good and evil.

>>443609
>amoral person knows not the difference between good and evil.
If this is the definition then it is practically impossible for a human being to be amoral

>moral nihilism
The idea that morality does not matter, it may not deny it exists.

example: Camus, Stirner

>amorality
acting without consideration for morality. This may involve saying morality doesn't exist or that it does exist and some things are beyond it

example: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche

>immorality
what a moralist calls his enemy's beliefs

Moral nihilism is the belief that morals don't exist. Amorality is a complete lack of regard for fixed morality (Stirner is a good example). Immorality is holding morals in some regard and then violating them.

>>443737
>>443609

Are there any philosophers that preach immorality?

>>443953
I think the Marquis de Sade qualifies.

I consider it a big fucking stretch to call him a philosopher, but Anton Le Vay qualifies if you likewise are willing to take that stretch.

>>444230
Correction, Anton LaVey.

Aren't you guys confusing morals with ethics?

Morals are specific to a society / culture / way of life. People who advocate immorality, don't necessarily advocate for ignoring the concepts of good and evil altogether

>>443615

Consider sociopaths and psychopaths. They're roughly 1% of the population.

>>444259
Sociopath and psychopath are buzzwords. People with antisocial personality disorder lack empathy, but they can still understand that other people approve or disapprove certain behaviors, they just don't understand why.

In order to be amoral, by that anon's definition, you would have to be mentally retarded to the point you can't see non-immediate consequences for your actions or suffer from some severe schizophrenia to the point you can't tell what is real or false. Admittedly, I think these are the sort of levels of crazy you have to be in order to make insanity pleas in court, so there might be a basis for it.

>>444252
desu any one who takes themselves seriously may as well see them as one in the same ethics is morals. they are formed in much the same way serve similar function (keeping people in order) and have contraries that go against the ethic or moral being stated. Morals exist as long as we create ethical systems in order to fit them in

>>443953
>>444230
>>444249
Anton Levay taught amorality.

He likes to use the words "evil" and "demonic" to refer to positive things in his writings and "saintly" or "holy" to refer to negative things in order to scare Christians and show that morality is only a perspective (what's evil to one person is good to another). He learned the trick from Nietzsche who used similar techniques.

>>444409
>ut they can still understand that other people approve or disapprove certain behaviors, they just don't understand why.
They can unless they're mentally handicapped. Even someone with ASPD understands why theft, murder and rape is considered bad.

>>444607
Ah, it's been a very long time since I read his book.

>>444681
I understand why one thinks that theft, murder and rape is considered bad, but I don't agree. Be a little more openminded, senpai.

Morals and ethics are an illusion of Satan to lead man astray. They foster doubt in the validity and supreme authority of the word of the Lord and His laws. Many philosophers have attempted to use morals and ethics to disprove the Lord's benevolence. Like with science, Satan has enabled this by giving man the illusion he can understand ultimate truth, know more than the Omniscient. But the basis of science and morals and ethics is not knowledge, it is doubt, proving they are the work of Satan. Make no mistake, morals and ethics are humanistic in nature, an imperfect human tainted by sin can not begin to comprehend the thinking of the Creator. To attempt to apply them to the workings of the Divine is folly, morals and ethics do not apply to God. It is hubris to treat God as but a simple man. There is no God but God, concepts of relative fairness do not apply to God, for God has no equals. The only morals and ethics that apply to God are how he he judges all of mankind as the ultimate judge. The concept of morals and ethics are ultimately paradoxical. Man in his imperfection can not determine the ultimate truth and judge between right and wrong. Man putting his own finite thoughts ahead of the thoughts of infinite knowledge is beyond pointless. It is man saying he is superior to God. People enter conflict because of differing morals and ethics, a Satanic plot to divide and plant the seeds of doubt. Philosophers are Satanically inspired, they think because they doubt, not because they know. Only He who is perfect and omniscient can knows truth in its entirety, and the only being capable of judging what is good and evil. You can not judge God by the standards of man, you can not judge the word of God or the law of God, to do so is to presume dominion over God, the Creator of all. You, as man, need only know the absolute Truth of God, you, the imperfect being, can not comprehend nor understand God, the perfect being, you can only know God. God is the Truth.