We are all amoral beings

Perhaps; but then I'd argue that nothing else does, not inferior animals, and not lifeless robots.

Morality is dependent on perception. So for example, the morals of an Englishman are different to those of a Chinese person, but in the end, everybody follows their defined set of morals.

The difference is in our perceptions of different people's morals, and our differences allow some people to see themselves as morally superior beings, but if we strive to understand each other's morals, we might come to understand them.

In reality, we are not amoral beings.

we live in a society where 800 million people are starving, a similar number dont have access to water and either Trump or Clinton will become the most powerful western leader. Speaks for itself really.

Morality is not objective. People develop their own sense of morality and what is right or wrong to do, and there is no reason to say that all people cannot stick to the subjective code they come up with for themselves. If you want to argue that a person is physically unable to follow their own system you'll have to expand on your point.

Ok, since you agree with me that morality is made up by individuals (btw you have not said why you disagree with me) then it is easy for me to argue that humans don't stick to their own subjective rules. And then one step to claim we are amoral.

P1. Humans act according to their own motivations
P2. There is no universal system that defines morality
C1. Morality is no different than any other human motivation
P3. Human motivations change all the time
C2. Morality changes all the time
P4. It is impossible for a human to follow something that changes all the time
C3a. It is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality
C3b. Humans are amoral beings

Humans lack morality. Being moral is a fictional, unattainable quality. Most people say they have morals but in reality no-one follows them. My argument is that it is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality. In essence we are amoral beings. Discuss.

That's like saying that a function cannot be defined if its differential is non-zero. You follow your morality at each instance in time.

Your evidence is what exactly?

It's attainable because we literally define it to be. It's a concept that we, as humans, define.

Humans lack morality. Being moral is a fictional, unattainable quality. Most people say they have morals but in reality no-one follows them. My argument is that it is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality. In essence we are amoral beings. Discuss.

Definitions:

What evidence do you require? Are you suggesting this is an empirical question? A simplified version of my argument with its main premises can be found in my previous post.

we live in a society where 800 million people are starving, a similar number dont have access to water and either Trump or Clinton will become the most powerful western leader. Speaks for itself really.

There's no such thing as objective morality yes. In every society that has existed, morality, i.e. what is considered right and wrong, has just been decided by those who are in power.

1. Of course it's an empirical question, you're making a statement about the physical world so it's utterly meaningless without some kind of evidence to support it.
2. I do not agree with your thought process. The only thing you've really said is that there's no such thing as objective morality, which is not the same thing as saying that humans are amoral.

What evidence do you have for my statement being "utterly meaningless" according to you? I'll ask you again: what evidence do you require?

No, read my simplified argument and tell me which premise you disagree with. I said much more than there being no objective morality.

1. You're the one making the positive statement, the burden of proof is on you.

2. You said that everyone has morals but nobody follows them.

3. So find out the moral code that people claim to follow and demonstrate that people then completely reject that moral code in practice.

4. I disagree with statements P1, potentially C1 and P3, P4 is nonsense and therefore C3a and C3b are not substantiated.

5. Your axioms are not based on evidence. Finding evidence to disprove your statements isn't my problem. A statement isn't correct by default until it's been disproven.

Whether or not it's true, I don't find the idea that humans are inherently immoral terribly useful. I hold myself to a system of morals; I don't follow them perfectly, but I try. As a result, I act in better, more beneficial ways. I have a happier life, and people around me have happier lives. It may well be that I am somehow deluding myself as to the attainability of my moral system; if I am, I don't really care.

I always thought the word was 'immoral' and I only clicked on here to find out what 'amoral' meant.

I didn't say "immoral" be careful with your words.

Nevertheless I agree that humans can try to follow morals but are never able to attain morality. I make no claims as to whether you can live a happy life following a moral system but this does not count against us being amoral. Also some people really do care about whether or not we are moral, especially religious people who believe in judgement and prophethood etc.



Glad this thread helped you in some way!