by Solid Mantis June 21, 2018
Not to be confused with "Immoral", A moral means "Absent of morals or moral reason". In the same way that "Atheist" means the "absence of religious belief".
Iam "Ok. I noticed that it seems to be the case that people vary in terms of what governs their behavior in the context of Freudian Psychology. How do I frame this properly?.... So... Let's start with the concept of a person's 'Drive'. You have your temperamental proclivities and these proclivities 'drive' your behavior (to whatever extent). In Freudian Psychology you have the Id (Instinct) Ego (Reality) Superego (Morality) and all people have these aspects within them. But to what degree are people 'Driven' by these different aspects of Psychology? Because it clearly varies. And how does it relate to their temperament in the context of the 'Big 5 personality traits'? So if you put all 3 on a scale like this
<Id------------Ego----------Superego>
1☝️ 2☝️
What causes someone to end up at point '1' I'm terms of their 'drive' as opposed to point '2'? So conscientious people tend to be conservative and conservatives tend to be religious. But not all religious people are priest. People higher in openness a usually liberal. Liberals seem less likely to be religious. But not all liberals are activist types. It seems as the activists are more heavily driven by Superego than non-activists. You could even say the radical types are more heavily driven by Superego (which is why the Social Justice movement is likened to a sort of faux religion). What is the cause for this and what causes someone to be 'Amoral' or more ID driven (for example hedonistic types)? Is it socialization?"
<Id------------Ego----------Superego>
1☝️ 2☝️
What causes someone to end up at point '1' I'm terms of their 'drive' as opposed to point '2'? So conscientious people tend to be conservative and conservatives tend to be religious. But not all religious people are priest. People higher in openness a usually liberal. Liberals seem less likely to be religious. But not all liberals are activist types. It seems as the activists are more heavily driven by Superego than non-activists. You could even say the radical types are more heavily driven by Superego (which is why the Social Justice movement is likened to a sort of faux religion). What is the cause for this and what causes someone to be 'Amoral' or more ID driven (for example hedonistic types)? Is it socialization?"
by Hym Iam May 12, 2022
–adjective
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
by twyzlur September 16, 2009
by Twisk April 13, 2023
A girl with a dark past, But also very strong, mature women she knows how to carry herself in situation she seems stuck in....have so many trust issues, she always have her guard up no matter who is it.... she a good listener and she is the best to give advice but when is the other way around she’s stubborn about it she’s hates getting told what to do she likes taking control... she doesn’t have the best body but still can pull any guy she wants and whenever she wants....she can be your BESTFRIEND but she can also be your worst enemy...don’t trigger her because she knows how to get down...
by Thinker_ June 12, 2018
wow she is so amore
by slaker boy one 13 January 19, 2022