Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a24d862ddee8d04f

Jump to content

Talk:Immorality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 months ago by TriTachyon in topic Problematic

Merge to Morality?

[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Problematic

[edit]

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)Reply

The article doesn't mention Gide, except in a footnote. Why is this article problematic? Jarble (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
The most glaring issue is the sexual immorality section; it makes some pretty bold & sweeping claims without providing sources for any of them. TriTachyon (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply