Moral, immoral, and amoral?

[Roman]

My ethics professor classifies all actions as either moral or not moral. There are no actions that are amoral. His reasoning is thusly:

Moral = right
Right = not wrong

So whether to write with your left hand or sit in a chair are both moral questions, since you can ask: is it right (moral) to sit down? Albeit, easy moral questions


Is this right?

 

[James R]

I mentioned this recently in another thread.

Moral philosophers of a particular ilk can be inclined to ask not "Is it right to do X?", but rather "Is it morally permissible to do X?"

Thus, anything that is not morally permissible is wrong. But things that are morally permissible may not necessarily have any large moral implication at all.

Example: it is morally permissible to write with your left hand. It is not an evil act to write with your left hand. But this doesn't mean everybody should be morally obliged or required to write with their left hand in order to be considered a moral person.

 

[swarm]

My ethics professor classifies all actions as either moral or not moral. There are no actions that are amoral. His reasoning is thusly:

Moral = right
Right = not wrong

So whether to write with your left hand or sit in a chair are both moral questions, since you can ask: is it right (moral) to sit down? Albeit, easy moral questions


Is this right?

Its a way to try and avoid some traditional ethics problems by saying anything not prohibited is permitted. He is redefining away amorality by saying it is moral.

Of course the real trick is knowing how to determine what is prohibited and when and why.