Thanks, but that's not what Ai-chan is looking for. It isn't about justice. It's about not following established morals like what @King0Mik said in his first paragraph.
Usually, something like this would be called evil, wicked or villainous. In practice, things are not always clear and easy to define as moral or immoral. Like, if you kill a serial murderer - is it moral or not? On one hand, you probably saved a lot of future victims, on the other you killed someone's child/parent.
Morality is inherently linked to a cultural concept of ethics that is applied alongside an individual's concept of ethics. That's the most simplistic way of looking at, and that's honestly as far as it gets beyond debating or comparing different views on what is ethically sound between different points of view. This is no better then an assumption of the idea of common sense, when the vast majority of people fail to realize that their 'common sense' has very little in common with each other. Topic is less a serious discussion than an existential one.
If morality is the people doing things they believe are good, then the opposite should be depravity. People that do things that they believe they are bad, evil or pervert.
I don't think there is. Morals is kind of like justice; from all the data you get, you then detemine your own morals/justice. And "common sense" has a lot of influence. People have always been agreeing and disagreeing, so I think it's important to handle it maturely at disagreements. Sadly, it's easy to only see only a/few representive trait/s of whatever group. Morals are as something positive, and usually you want to have that armor -- even if you don't believe it. As long as others doesn't know that you anonymously watch lolis on hentai sites, you can stand your head tall. (Sitenote: Shame on you loli lovers.)
Blame the most evil humans that to prefer animals over his own specie. Edit: Also, the people that disagree with sex with animals because its disgusting and if they are having sex with animals, they are not having sex with human consequently having not children is less taxes being paid, so, its unallowed to have sex with animals.
that is difficult to answer, since morality change from person to person... but if you want a general view then: morality > immorality > depravity as for how to judge the cases, well that is up to where you live.....
Fiendishness, roguery, immorality, unethicalness? Everyone got their own morality for me a group of evil is the church and the onu, the church let it be what happen to the kids and the onu mess with thing that really doesn't matter and what's really important doesn't care.
Blazing your own path. Not limit to the box everyone feels comfortable in. Unconventional path. Set sail to a new uncharted horizon. A frightening adventure in the unknown dark. Guide by a dream and a hope.
@Parthy answered this in the very first reply. Depravity. That aside, my take on morality is that it's a lot simpler than people make it out to be, and based wholly around harm done to other people, as opposed to 'rules' you need to follow. An immoral act is one that harms someone else -- don't harm anyone, and you're guilty of nothing. The apparent complexity comes from arbitrary rules, justifications, rationalizations and excuses.
Ethic and moral are distinct fields. Even if the most imoral things are not ethicnally wrong, they has a propose and they are necessary for build a healthy society and they are made to avoid because its consequences. What I see when people say about being against the morality, its just people wanting force them things to be socially accept but don't only this but force them things into people that disagree to cause angry and other shits. For example, gay marriage, gay people wanting be marriage in a church and using the State to force it. Gay marriage is not wrong ethically but forcing people to do something they don't want its not ethical, then, this shit justify people get a ak-47 and shoot you. Also: Forcing people to do something they don't want violate the private property. So, its ethically correct to shoot gay people that are forcing to be marriaged in a church.
No because you're not deviating from the idea. Think of it a different way: imagine everyone has a personal rulebook that they can refer to that tells them what to do in life in general. There can't be a person without a rulebook, because it's not logically different from a person with a rulebook that is blank. Regardless of what the contents are of any rulebook selected at random, the outcome is still something that can be described in terms of rulebooks. What you're talking about is not "what about some magical way of life that is outside of the scope of morality" and instead you're talking about "different moral codes than from what I'm used to dealing with." At the end of the day they're still moral codes or systems, because it's not possible for something to exist that cannot be defined within thsi framework. Axioms and system theory and stuff, etc.