Do I even need to make a list of horrible amorality by “democratic republics”?
I don’t think you’re talking about the same thing as fubarobfusco. When fubarobfusco speaks about democratic republics not being “amoral”, I think he means that they’re not “utterly disinterested in the concept of morality”. Which indeed they’re not: e.g. they partially care about the will of their voters, and the voters are partially interested in morality.
When you speak about amorality, I think you’re referring to how democratic republics often fall short or don’t really care about their supposed or proclaimed values. So that in practice their behaviour isn’t particularly moral.
I don’t think you two are necessarily in disagreement, I think you’re just using “amoral” in a different sense.
Yes, pretty much. Republics are not good at morality but they are not uncaring, either.
EDIT: I have difficulty taking Konkvistador’s comment as anything but a joke, because I specified what I meant by “not amoral”, namely “it has moral (or moral-like) objections to some contract terms”. I should probably clarify what counts as “moral-like objections”: ones grounded on consequential, deontological, or virtue premises, e.g.:
“We don’t enforce that contract term because doing so would cause harm.”
″… to the contracting parties.”
″… to society at large.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because we’re obligated not to.”
″… because it would violate someone’s rights.”
″… because we couldn’t do so without exceeding our legitimate authority.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because good people wouldn’t do that.”
″… because it would reward bad behavior.”
″… because doing so would make us like the Bad Example People.”
I don’t think you’re talking about the same thing as fubarobfusco. When fubarobfusco speaks about democratic republics not being “amoral”, I think he means that they’re not “utterly disinterested in the concept of morality”. Which indeed they’re not: e.g. they partially care about the will of their voters, and the voters are partially interested in morality.
When you speak about amorality, I think you’re referring to how democratic republics often fall short or don’t really care about their supposed or proclaimed values. So that in practice their behaviour isn’t particularly moral.
I don’t think you two are necessarily in disagreement, I think you’re just using “amoral” in a different sense.
Yes, pretty much. Republics are not good at morality but they are not uncaring, either.
EDIT: I have difficulty taking Konkvistador’s comment as anything but a joke, because I specified what I meant by “not amoral”, namely “it has moral (or moral-like) objections to some contract terms”. I should probably clarify what counts as “moral-like objections”: ones grounded on consequential, deontological, or virtue premises, e.g.:
“We don’t enforce that contract term because doing so would cause harm.”
″… to the contracting parties.”
″… to society at large.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because we’re obligated not to.”
″… because it would violate someone’s rights.”
″… because we couldn’t do so without exceeding our legitimate authority.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because good people wouldn’t do that.”
″… because it would reward bad behavior.”
″… because doing so would make us like the Bad Example People.”