Is it better or worse to be immoral or amoral? To consciously choose to act against your moral code or not to have one in the first place?
Which is the greater evil? Does it make a difference to the answer if you consider an individual and then an organisation?
Personally I tend to think immorality is worse, but would love to hear considered opinions on the subject for my eloquent fellow dopers, particularly with discussion and analysis of the reasons.
Call me philosphical at midnight if you must…
Hmrf. Well, I’d probably go with immoral being worse, though the determination of the evilness of either would have to be determined on a case by case basis.
I say immorality is worse because there is an assumed stance of morality to begin with; immorality violates those standards every time, while ammorality probably approaches 50/50. (Unless consistency is a given, in which case there’s not much of a difference.)
No real theoretical difference in the case of individual vs. organization, although practically speaking I’d say that organizations should be subject to a larger set of codified standards and punishments, due to both the larger impact their actions might have and the fact that there less accountability.
I’d say amorality is worse.
Someone who behaves in an immoral fashion must, ipso facto have a sense of morality to begin with. He understands the difference between right and wrong, but does not always choose to do right. Knowing, however, that his actions are wrong is the first step toward the capacity for regret.
Someone who is amoral cannot be brought to understand that actions which harm others should be avoided purely on ethical grounds. And as such he is incapable of functioning within society.
I think it parallels closely with the question of whether hatred is worse than indifference. As the saying goes, there’s a thin line between love and hate. But indifference, which I would equate to amorality, is a whole other animal, one capable of infinitely worse atrocities.