Immoral v. Anti-Moral
Explained by example.
You're sitting in your living room and mom has left to get something from the mail box, you sneak into her room, rifled through her purse and come away with six loose dollar bills.
This is an example of an immoral act. It takes on this definition because it was done by an individual that realized the act was wrong and could get them in trouble. The person perpetrating this act was doing it when the mother had left the room, needing to do this thing in secret, away from observation.
Now instead. You are sitting in your living room, Mother is at the dining table, you want money, you take your mother's purse, dump in on the floor and take what you want.
Although the act itself still appears to be immoral, it is, in fact, Anti-moral by nature. Because the individual has no claim to morality or avenue by which to determine if the act is a valid way to deal with other people. This particular person holds no meaning, no way to say such an act is inappropriate. From their point of view, the act is not a question of morality. It is a question of metaphysical ownership and desire that have never been tempered with a valid epsitomology.
A man that doesn't wear his seatbelt, by the opinion of moral ownership, is committing an immoral act. The State agent that pursues him for it is imposing an anti-moral view of ownership over the event, simply because the State wants that ownership, not because the State has made a logical conclusion about the nature of moral rights and the authority of the State, but simply because it can.
You're sitting in your living room and mom has left to get something from the mail box, you sneak into her room, rifled through her purse and come away with six loose dollar bills.
This is an example of an immoral act. It takes on this definition because it was done by an individual that realized the act was wrong and could get them in trouble. The person perpetrating this act was doing it when the mother had left the room, needing to do this thing in secret, away from observation.
Now instead. You are sitting in your living room, Mother is at the dining table, you want money, you take your mother's purse, dump in on the floor and take what you want.
Although the act itself still appears to be immoral, it is, in fact, Anti-moral by nature. Because the individual has no claim to morality or avenue by which to determine if the act is a valid way to deal with other people. This particular person holds no meaning, no way to say such an act is inappropriate. From their point of view, the act is not a question of morality. It is a question of metaphysical ownership and desire that have never been tempered with a valid epsitomology.
A man that doesn't wear his seatbelt, by the opinion of moral ownership, is committing an immoral act. The State agent that pursues him for it is imposing an anti-moral view of ownership over the event, simply because the State wants that ownership, not because the State has made a logical conclusion about the nature of moral rights and the authority of the State, but simply because it can.
Comments
Post a Comment