Nowadays, the struggle for morality is sometimes gaining incredible intensity, and in the heat of controversy such complicated phrases are compiled that an unprepared listener only disconnects perception from an abundance of not-so-clear terms. The meaning escapes, and the discussion moves from specificity to the emotional spectrum. For example, who are amorals, and why are they so fiercely stigmatized by advocates of moral purity? Moreover, literally anyone falls into this category, so it can be difficult to determine the scope of the acceptable.
Origin of the term
If you argue from an academic point of view, then we are talking about the so-called "Newspeak." There is an adjective “immoral”, but a noun derived from it appeared relatively recently, moreover, it refers more to slang. Who are the immoral? In fact, this is the antonym of the word "moralist", which in most cases carries an ironic emotional connotation.
The Latin concept of moralis means "moral." The negative prefix "a" came to us from the Greek language. It turns out that the immoral - it does not meet the standards of morality, just like illogical - it does not meet the requirements of logic. But if there is a noun “moralist”, then according to the laws of language development there should be an antonym, so the word “immoral” appeared. Synonyms here can be selected according to the meaning, proceeding from the context: from “shameless” to “bastard”, although in reality these are somewhat different concepts. It is important that it becomes clear - we are talking about a person whose actions and reasoning do not correspond to generally accepted moral principles.
Immoral thinking
It is necessary to separate the lifestyle and actions from some speculative conclusions. A person who observes all social attitudes and carefully monitors so as not to cross borders, may at the same time differ in immoral thinking. Not in all cases, this leaves an imprint on behavior. Who are the immoral? Nowadays, when an anonymous person can be hidden behind anonymity on the Internet, users get the opportunity to freely express all their thoughts, including frankly unpleasant and even shocking ones.
It was on the network that the expression "moral phages" appeared. In any discussion, where the sides of human life are discussed in one way or another, a certain personality may appear that violently shocking morality, like a sacred banner. This is a classic champion of morality, but so fierce that the witty Internet community immediately aggravated the term. In contrast to the moralophages, trolls specializing in the prosecution of just such personalities pulled themselves together. Amorals defiantly refute the principles of “spiritual purity,” and sometimes it may really seem that we are surrounded by terrible people. More often it’s just verbal gymnastics and the study of some kind of mental fallacies.
Amoral behavior
Unlike some thoughts or anonymous discussions on the Internet, actions in life affect others much more. Immoral behavior is often attributed to marginalized individuals, although in essence these are simply signs of sliding along the edge of a social group. There is much to do with the ability to adapt in society, while respecting generally accepted decency. Who are amorals in the context of behavior? This includes all asocial personalities, as well as citizens who incur judgment on violation of the classical principles of "what is good and what is bad."
Blurred frames of morality
The main problem of modern society is the excessive breadth of interpretation that many use for their own purposes. People deprived of morality are not found so often, and at some point it became fashionable to declare themselves as a freak. Young people happily ascribe to themselves psychopathic traits that they actually do not possess. Under such a mask, a quivering and even conscientious creature is often hidden, fearing once again to show others its tender essence. Kindness, courtesy and gentleness for some reason began to be considered qualities of spineless and weak, signs of a victim, which itself begs for aggression.
A pretended immoral person sticking out his otherness, can count on at least the fact that potential lovers will not want to get involved with it, have fun or assert themselves at someone else's expense. On the other hand, how to determine what exactly goes beyond morality? After the final victory of the sexual revolution, the intimate side of the issue ceased to be taboo, and the right to drink or smoke is limited, perhaps, only by the age to which these goods will not be sold.
Morality as a subjective parameter of judgment
Tolerance, which is now customary to scold or exalt to heaven, seriously complicated the situation. Old templates no longer work. Theoretically, it can be stated that some conditional homosexual is an immoral person, because he allows himself a same-sex relationship and does not even hide it, but at the same time he can be an exemplary citizen, kind and honest, carefully pay taxes, and do charity not for show, but by command hearts. And how then to blame him for immorality? Especially if you contrast him with a person of a traditional orientation, but distinctly asocial, absurd and even dangerous.
Morality has moved from the category of objective parameters to subjective. We have to admit that the world has become more accessible, the borders are more transparent, and if openly strange standards of behavior are accepted for us somewhere, this is not a reason to declare a holy war in defense of violated virtue.