i believe that "amoral" can be defined as whatever has no conscious concern for right or wrong.
so a thing need not be evil to be amoral.
but it could not be a subjective definition because it can be defined by observable outward characteristics.
her is a definition from www.philosophy,lander.edu (an online philosophy course):
a. Note that an amoral action by one person could be considered nonmoral or even immoral by the society, depending upon the moral code of the society.
1. If I tell a lie without concern for the moral concepts of a society of what is good and bad, then c.p. I have acted amorally. (Notice how such a view makes the use of "amoral" intentional.)
2. For example, a sociopath, sometimes called a person without a conscience, and a very young child are called amoral because the person has no feeling or understanding of the concepts of right and wrong
b. If I tell a lie without concern for the moral rules of society and it is a "white" lie and "white" lies are permissible in that society, then I am acting amorally. Nevertheless, my action is considered to be nonmoral or morally permissible.
c. The "white" lie told in a society where such actions are against the moral cold would be an immoral action and called wrong.
Reply
