Morality is a kind of bargain between individuals for common interests. If we think of a world where amoralists did exactly as they wish, no one would abide by laws or regulations set down before them, for seeing others breaking the law would make everyone think they could do it too. This would cause the break down of society into complete chaos and anarchy; there would be no structure to any part of our world if everyone was acting purely for themselves. But in this world surely the amoralist would flourish? They are the ones with the courage, desire and strength to get what they want without any consideration of the lives around them. Also, even if some were to act immorally, this does not necessarily cause others to act the same way. For example, a little boy is caught in his neighbour’s garden climbing his tree. The neighbour tells him not to and the boy asks why he can’t. The neighbour says he can’t climb his tree because what if every little boy were to climb his tree? This is a hopeless argument. We can see that if every little boy in the world were to climb his tree then it would be a problem, but every boy won’t climb his tree because it is very unlikely that they will hear of it. Actually, hardly anyone would hear of this one incident and, as the boy hasn’t caused any harm to the tree, the argument presents no true cause to stop him climbing the tree. As Plato states in his Republic, contractualism is a bad philosophy, hence it cannot be used as an argument against amoralism.
To be amoral we should always act to follow our own selfish desires, but how do we do this? The amoralist claims that even when doing a good deed, something that would not benefit you in any way like to visit your friend who is ill, we are only motivated by the fear of guilt that we would otherwise be plagued by were we not to do this deed. There is a major flaw in this statement, for if we are amoral and do not care for the lives of others, why would we then feel guilty if we did not do this good deed in question? The feeling of guilt can only come from the care of what others would think of us and of what we should be doing as is morally right. These feelings completely contradict the amoralist view. Nevertheless this example is only a descriptive claim of what we do, as amoralism is a claim for what is the “norm”, a normative claim, this cannot be an argument against amoralism. The amoralist agrees that this would be an irrational thing to do, it does not follow to pursue their self interests, yet sometimes these acts are necessary to continue their selfish existence without being caught out.
The picture that an amoralist paints of himself is someone that is strong, courageous and determined to do exactly what they wish. We are in awe of what the amoralist is like, they are described as splendid and brave but, if we look closely into what the amoralist truly is, does he not closely resemble a mad man or a psychopath? He is someone that ignores the laws placed down for society, acts purely for his own self interests and has no care for others around him. This image is horrifying and a stark comparison to the picture given by the amoralist, no one would ever desire to be mad. In truth, the mad man is actually completely different to the amoralist. The psychopath or mad man is actually insane and is only driven by his own desires but the amoralist is cool, calculating and completely in control. They consider and aren’t driven by their desires, they only act to maximise their pleasures and can make their own choices of what to do.
Ways to overcome the Amoralist
The amoralist seems to be missing something from the world by purely looking at it from his own perspective. Alternatively, the consequentialist believes that in the grand scheme of things, his own happiness is not important. It is people as a whole, being happy and fulfilled, that gives the best outcome. This viewpoint is the utilitarian approach, a type of consequentialism, in which its moral aim is to provide the greatest good to the greatest amount of people. The amoralist attitude means he only acts for himself and it is this narrow minded view that obscures him from seeing the influence he has on everyone else’s lives; his single happiness is worthless therefore giving him reason to be moral. Unfortunately the amoralist can still argue against this point as he, in is limited way of thinking, still considers himself to be happy. Acting in this apparently selfish way still gives him what he desires and subsequently provides him with happiness. This suggests that the argument is not strong enough to deter him from his selfish means.
Another approach stems from deontological theories. These suggest that morality is not a way of thinking but actually a way of being. We, as humans, are rational beings and to maximise our welfare we need to consider others in how we act. The amoralist suggests that we blindly follow our desires no matter what they are or who they affect. But this undermines the most human trait, by ignoring reason, making us as good as animals. Our desires are arational but, by controlling them with reason, we are capable of deciding which ones are worth acting upon. If we are to ignore this characteristic human trait, we are dishonouring ourselves by not living to our full potential. By regarding the thoughts and desires of others rationally we are able to live a much happier and content life. This is the view proposed by Kant, that it is inherent in our nature as humans to be rational. To live, denying this nature would cause us to have an internal conflict and this would taint any good we would gain by acting only for our own desires. Yet, it is a hard point to comprehend, for I still feel that it is my right to choose what I will and taking away this possibility, by proposing that it is an inherent trait of me to act this way, seems somewhat restricting. By looking at the differences in opinion and the divergence of moral concerns it is quite hard to say that morality is inherent.
The amoralist, in only acting for his own selfish desires, isolates himself from the people around him. He cannot build up the trust to give fruitful relationships with others, for if his desires pull him against the values of a relationship he will follow them discarding everyone in his way. As human beings are naturally social, this isolation causes the amoralist to miss out on one of life’s greatest goods; the love of others. Making other people happy gives us a feeling of joy unrivalled; it is part of us to flourish in the enjoyment of others. Yet if this highest joy is missed out by amoralists, how can their way of life be the best? This is a characteristic of Virtue Ethics, especially Aristotelian. Aristotle claims that human nature is in essentially social, the background of morality that we are brought up into is there for our own good. For, by being denied the desires that we wish for ourselves when young and inexperienced, we are able to develop and appreciate the relationships that would have otherwise been destroyed by getting just what we want. To make the best of our social relationships we need to have certain qualities of character and it is these, qualities of character that everyone looks for to build a good relationship, which the amoralist lacks in his way of life.
I should be moral so to live happily
The argument from virtue ethics, that you cannot lead a happy and fulfilling life without the social relationships that we, as humans, need is the main way I believe of defeating the amoralist. When we look into the necessary goods that we require in life to be truly happy, no one can imagine that being alone and isolated would be one of them. Relationships are a part of human nature, to flourish in this world we need to consider these as a way of life. Hence to be able to build this trust in others and for other people to be able to trust you, we need to act morally. A moral background in the start of our life sets us up for creating the social skills needed to have fulfilling relationships. Without this structured upbringing hence not being taught moral considerations for others, there would be no way that we could act in this world to bring about the most happiness. Wealth, power and pursuing only your own goals is all very attractive until we consider that this life would be lead alone. Taking all these separate factors into consideration, I cannot see a content life without being moral.