Talk:Immorality

Merge to Morality?

This article seems to be about the exactly same topic as the article Morality. I propose it be merged to there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The articles separated allow readers to digest and organize the information, and for the editors to feel more free to add information related to either topic. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the page doesn't have enough content, neither existing or potential. The subject is too closely tied to morality to really warrant even being called a subject of its own. The whole existence of immorality as a concept is defined through and completely dependent upon morality. Furthermore, morality not only refers to what actions are morally right, but also to which ones are not, thereby containing immorality in itself. BlueBanana (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the phrase "Morally incorrect" is clear proof of that, and in the same way there are immorally incorrect things, i.e, both have "correct" and "incorrect" sides, but that doesn't automatically propose immorality as just an ideology, that's also not how it works, we shouldn't generalize by saying that "Morality" promotes correct actions and immorality, incorrect actions, but we also shouldn't say that being immoral is a good thing, because it definitely isn't. 177.105.94.73 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Problematic

Needs a complete rewrite. If Gide is the main reference point, not worth saving in its current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.219 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Gide, except in a footnote. Why is this article problematic? Jarble (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea either, if that's his problem, it's pretty tiny, @36.11.224.219, don't take personally, but it was kinda needless. (Note: Don't take personally, pls) 177.105.94.73 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)