OK. If someone behaves or thinks in a way that is contradictory to your moral code, then he or she is immoral from your perspective. That statement is in line with morality being relative. But, and this was my point to begin with, just because someone is immoral from your perspective does not mean that the person is not moral.
To me, a moral person is someone whose actions and thoughts are regulated by an established moral code; a code that was already in existence prior to that person following it or even a code that was invented by the person (so long as it is based truthful thought and logic).
And, to me, an immoral person can be defined in 2 ways:
A person whose morality is defined by his or her needs and wants at the present time; basically shaping a moral code for the sole purpose of benefitting oneself.
or
Intentionally acting or thinking in a means to contradict an existing moral code. e.g. murdering someone just because it is illegal, or marrying someone from a different religion only because your own religion forbids it, etc.
Our argument is based on whether or not Tony can be included in my 1st definition of immoral. I say no. He didn’t invent the mafia code. He was brought up on that code. Many of his actions and orders stem from the fact that he is a leader now and he is given power by the code. But even when he wasn’t a leader, he still followed the code and its hierarchical structure. And remember, everything here is a shade of grey. No one is absolutely moral and no one is absolutely immoral. I just think that Tony falls into the moral side of the spectrum.
And someone a while back mentioned amorality. This, to me, is a type of morality in which someone chooses to not conform to any moral code. At each point in his or her life, that person will choose what’s right and wrong based on the circumstance. To someone looking at this person, he or she may even appear to act in an immoral way (per my 1st definition if the term). But if the person is seeking to differentiate between right and wrong at each intersection, they are not immoral. They really just have a constantly evolving morality. So someone who is a rebel is immoral, but a non-conformist is amoral.
Anyway, I really can’t dedicate much more time to this discussion. I tried my best and got a little more involved than I wanted to.
It is, in fact, the only way (under a relative morality) that such a statement is meaningful.
Yes. And that is simply an expression of your relative moral system. You define a person as moral depending upon whether they conform to your bounded understanding of how morality is defined.
The difference between us, apparently, is that I understand this limitation and you decry it in others while ignoring it in yourself.
No. Our disagreement hinges upon your unusual, and I believe unfounded, approach to moral relativism. And while we’re on that subject, how do reconcile the following statements with ethical hedonism: To me, a moral person is someone whose actions and thoughts are regulated by an established moral code; a code that was already in existence prior to that person following it or even a code that was invented by the person (so long as it is based truthful thought and logic).
and to me, an immoral person can be defined . . . A person whose morality is defined by his or her needs and wants at the present time
?
That’s fine. To most of the English speaking world, however, amorality is not the constant re-evaluation of moral values but the lack of moral values. An amoral person does not make any distinction between right and wrong. What you describe is an extreme case of situational ethics. An amoral act is one that has no moral character, not one which is capricious.
Yes, because your relative morality includes the acceptance of any established code of behavior, no matter how heinous and destructive. Neo-nazis are moral since they did not invent white supremecism. A pedarast would be moral if he were simply continuing an ethic of abuse that he learned from previous generations.
I find such a definition of morality to be without emotional, intellectual, or utilitarian value.