Whats worse, having evil morals or having none or limited morals

Asked By: ratburn 18-21 11 months ago

Basically who's worse, the racist who does not care about morals and only his personal preferences, or the racist who believes its his moral duty to be racist.
or
The man who steals without concern for morality, or the man who steals because of their morality.
The man who kills without concern for morality, or the man who kills because of their morality.

Is This A Good Question? (2)

Add an Answer to "Whats worse, having evil morals or having none or limited morals"

5 Answers to "Whats worse, having evil morals or having none or limited morals"

Posted by BlurredOwl Jul 13th, 2012 at 10:09PM

Probably easier to teach someone lacking morals than it is to change someones existing morals.

Like (2)
Posted by Martha45 Jul 14th, 2012 at 10:10AM

Compromising yourself is always wrong. My saying is if your going to be damed be damed for who you are.

Like (1)
Posted by ctjmur Jul 14th, 2012 at 8:45AM

All as bad as each other

Like (1)
Posted by ErieHandyMan Jul 13th, 2012 at 11:04PM

That is too many moral questions. I see no big difference betweeen immoral and amoral. Both put the pesidencce on the moral to intervene. In your example. the racist goes out of his way to hurt. The amoral will not intervene in the stopping the racist. So both are equally at fault for allowing it. The outcome is the same. The amoral can justify by saying, "I didn't do it", but the end result is the evil act was still done and not stopped. Therefore it is the moral that must stand up and stop the act. The amoral will stand by and allow the act of the immoral to take place. Many people could have stopped Hitler, but they wouldn't take the necessary action. Since it wasn't harming them personally, they saw no need to stop it.

Like (1)
Reply by ratburn Jul 14th, 2012 at 9:20AM

But its a lot easier to teach someone with no morals than someone who has bad morals.
Like (1)
Reply by ErieHandyMan Jul 14th, 2012 at 9:22AM

Just string them all up. I don't have the time to raise them.
Like (1)
Posted by SilenceEvermore Jul 13th, 2012 at 10:20PM

I would say that having no morals is worse. Having evil morals at least means that the individual has a pattern and a set of standards she/he follows. None means that the individual is unpredictable.

Like (1)
Reply by ratburn Jul 13th, 2012 at 10:42PM

How is having evil morals good? I find that the moralists are much more set in their ways, while the amoral can at least learn
Like (1)
Reply by SilenceEvermore Jul 13th, 2012 at 10:43PM

I never said it was good. I said it lends to predictability. Those with no morals are unpredictable, thus making them scarier.
Like (1)