So you have morality, which states that there is a specific group of ethics that determine what is good or moral such as not sleeping with your daddy's wife or oppressing people under you or not practicing usury. It can be argued that morality has been what's keeping people on the right track. But what if people want to go off the right track, to walk the non-beaten path? What if morality state that cloning sheep is wrong, but you want to clone sheep because want to progress science? Maybe Thanos wants to destroy half the world, it's certainly not moral, but it is his solution. So then what is the opposite to morals? What do you call this? Ai-chan had this word yesterday, but now Ai-chan forgot about it. Please take note that this is a serious topic.
it's not so much the opposite of morality as having a different set of morals altogether. there is no unifying set of morality - religion tries but fails hence the lack of main religion or sectless major religion. bleh, not going on a religion tangent today... if you consider morality a scale, then I suppose depravity is the opposite of morality.
Yeah, that's the question Ai-chan wanted to ask. It's not the contents of morality itself, but what is the opposite of it. Something like Order being the opposite of Chaos or Authoritarianism being the opposite of Libertarianism.
Ai-chan is actually going for something along the line of Progress <-> Morality thing. Because morality makes you not want to challenge established conventions because it's sinful. So if nobody does immoral things such as cutting open stolen corpses to study the organs, we wouldn't know how organs work, since the Catholics in the middle ages stated that cutting open a corpse was sinful. Please take note that this is a serious topic.
There isn't an "opposite" to morality. The idea of a moral code is axiomatic, which basically means it's not something that has a "no" side of things. Morality is the science of relationships. Everything that exists can or does have a relationship with other things. It's not possible to describe something that has no relationship with anything else, because "does not interact with anything else" is a relationship it would have with everything else. I recommend you spend your time investigating and learning more about Objective Morality. Makes things a lot easier if you can figure that out.
Would it have made a difference if Ai-chan had specified ethics instead of morality? What do you call some acts that go sideways from what is accepted?
Well, the opposite of moral would be immoral... that is the actual language I am not sure exactly what you mean. Are you looking for a word that describes how someone can challenge current moral norms with new ideas? People are still arguing about the morality of cloning, and there is also the question about what rights should clone have and what identity. And there is a big difference between cloning a sheep and murdering half of the universe...
It's called amorality and it seems to be gaining ground from what I've seen in fiction. I've grown disillusioned with the idea of a circle in which everything is right and everything outside is wrong.
Cloning sheep isn't amoral, you're confusing morals with dumb religions. Thanos's solution wasn't needed and it's moronic. If the population grew too much a far more sensible solution is to limit procreation, not mass murder.
amorality is having no sense of morals whereas immorality is the opposite of what is considered "moral" (just thought I'd clarify )
Basically you have this slide [X] <-> [Morality] If you help the poor, you go one step towards Morality. If you rob people for the greater good or you kill murderers and criminals instead of bringing them to the court, you go towards X. What Ai-chan wants to know is what would that X be called.
I feel that most of morality has to do with not harming other people, so perhaps the opposite would be selfishness. Although at times, morality may go against progress (such as in the sciences), it does not always do so, and the morality which prevents such progress is to protect those who would suffer should the progress be conducted in the immoral manner. Example: We don't have people working on construction 24/7 because they will die from the overwork and possibly from lack of food, water, and other basic resources needed to live (assuming those items are not provided). Just a side note, but I honestly thought that Thanos's whole reason for destroying half the world is kinda dumb. We actually do have enough resources to sustain all current human life, but we are wasteful with it. Tons of edible food are thrown out each day, including produce which is perfectly edible but looks ugly. It is also possible that the other planets are similar since there appears to be a (economic) class division among the people. (So, the more aristocratic class may be more wasteful with their resources.) Regardless, simply removing people randomly probably did more bad than good. The losses of certain people may have caused deaths beyond what Thanos wanted. (i.e. Imagine if the pilots of a commercial airflight disappeared. It would be likely that all the people on the plane will die because there will be no one to properly land it.) Moreover, the people are still likely going to keep the status quo, so the poor people will still starve.