Amoralism is not Immoralism
Moralism is an unchangeable household of tropes present in all cultures the same.
Amoralism denies the omnipresent tropes of evil and sin.
A-moralism is not to be confused with im-moralism.
We do not accept the notion that „being moral” makes you „a good human.” The most „moral” phaenomena imaginable are the angry mob with forks and neighbourhood watches, the latter being caused by the moral trope of „stranger danger”.
Being amoralist does not mean a lack of empathy. Get it.
Amoralism rejects the trope of Eschatology (Utopianism) Eschatology is the idea of a historical development of a fight between the forces of good against evil, with final triumph of the good. The „change” that Eschatology always wants to bring about is necessarily tied to violence as „absolute ends justify absolute means.”
The Legitimacy of the Modern Age
Amoralism poses the question of the legitimacy of the enlightenment as coined by Karl Löwith. (theological implications in secularism) This means that we think that criticism of religion today is criticism of secularized religion all too regularly.
Amoralism proudly rejects any form of spiritualism. As patients of medicine we proudly reject „holistic” forms of treatment.
Amoralism dissociates itself from token-skeptics, closet-theists, deists, false atheists (namely: humanists)
Regularly Humanism falsely labels itself Atheism and atheistic. Humanism is not atheist, it does not reject spiritualism, does not reject moralism, does not reject utopianism and sometimes not even teleological thinking.
Amoralism further distances itself from professions such as psychology and education as they have, in the secular world, taken the position of moral authority. Further, as Susan Sontag states, psychology is only „sublimated spiritualism” which is whence it draws its popularity and persuasiveness.
Defining „Evil”
In order to talk about moralism, we need to define good and evil. The way we will have to take in order to define evil is similar to how in model-theory the so-called undefined terms are defined by virtue of formal characteristics of relationships such as reflexive, symmetric or transitive. Only with the difference, that the formal characteristics are that of opposites. Our task shall start with the contradictory opposition, but this is not enough to derive any moral terms or tropes from. The contradictory opposition is only some negatio alicuius.
Evil is at least a privation, not only a negation.