Is truth immoral? or amoral?

(Quote from Franz Bardon’s “Initiation Into Hermetics”.)

In reaction to this:

If the universe is truth,
And the truth is neither good nor bad,
Is the truth not also a form of immorality?

And is not dishonesty a form of virtue? A filter? a blind? A shakal and a stock? Having no real or large place in the natural order of existence and reality?

You are misunderstanding the definition of immoral. If it is neither good nor bad, then it cannot be immoral, because that would make it bad. Hence, it must be amoral, because it would then have no moral value.

immoral
adjective

  1. Morally objectionable: bad, black, evil, iniquitous, peccant, reprobate, sinful, vicious, wicked, wrong.

a·mor·al (ā-môr’əl, ā-mŏr’-) pronunciation
adj.

  1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.

Thus, what you mean is amoral.

No. This follows from your misconception of what immoral means.

Also, if truth is required in order to make resposible decisions, and therefore to be a responsible moral agent, then truth is quite important if one desires to be moral. As such, even though truth may not itself be “moral”, it may be a virtue in the sense that it aids one in being moral.

Earthquake happens.
Lots of people die.

It’s a cruel world.
That’s bad.

Etc.

The universe was acting immorally, as soon as it went against human desire. [or as you’d say- it acted amorally]

But the nature of reality largely not supporting or giving a shit about human ideals, leads to reality being moreso an immorality than it is an amorality. As such, the truth is an ugly and useless thing.

This is the problem of evil. But the problem of evil is concerned with God (a being which is a moral agent), and not merely with the way nature functions.

Again, amoral and immoral are not equivalent terms. If you want to have a meaningfu discussion, you need to use the right term in the right way.

Also, you are assuming nature or reality is even capable of giving a shit about humanity. A sociopath by his or her nature is incapable of empathy, or having concern for your well-being, and hence is deemed amoral. Kant gives us an argument against this, specifically that even without compassion or empathy that merely being a reasoning being we are capable of following our moral obligations. As such, even on this picture you must assume nature has a mind, a reasoning capability to even be a moral agent.

Are you making either or both assumptions? You did not state such. Therefore, your statement “went against human desires” is nonsensical. Nature isn’t capable of going against anything. It is only capable of following natural laws, and that neither implies nor explicitly states anything of moral consequence. Ought implies can. Nature can’t have concern for you, nor reason. It’s not even possible for it to be a moral agent, and therefore no ‘actions’ (if that word can even apply, and I don’t see how it can since ‘action’ seems to imply an intention/mind as well) it undertakes have moral worth. Are you actually willing to bite the bullet on this one and accuse nature of being a murderer? And if so, how do you support that? Prima facie that seems to be utterly nonsensical as well (and for precisely the same reason). How would you support that claim (if indeed that is the claim you are making)?

The first sentence I already covered.

Your aesthetic evaluation of truth is inconsequential here. Also, if we’re going with a Humean notion of morality, we can’t do morality without truth. Indeed, even not going with Hume, how does one make responsible choices without truth? It either will or won’t make little girl X cry if I take away her teddy bear. Without that knowledge (witout that fact, i.e., truth for our purposes here) I can’t even make an informed decision. I can’t act as a moral agent without truth. How do I even get started? You have now totally handicapped any moral action I might attempt. Hence, my conclusion that truth seems to serve morality, specifically in regards to functioning as a moral agent.

Reality is what it is. You can argue about whether it’s moral or immoral or amoral until you’re blue in the face; in the end, A equals A, and that’s it.

How is the universe truth?

I certainly agree with shybard in that in this sense the universe is simply amoral. Sure, in an obvious sense, the universe is truth. But to pass moral judgements on its operations is to assume it has a moral aspect to it - a moral aspect which, in truth, may only come from us ie ratonal beings.

Truth is good cause it helps you to stay alive. It’s also good for making friends and finding people that love you.

In an obvious sense the universe is truth.

You mocking me boy? lol

If my judgements are the real moral agent, then I would certainly prefer to believe that the universe was good, rather than evil or indifferent.

So how do I do that?

Amoral is immoral; it has no boundry and obeys no human code of conduct.

The Universe is the Universe, and being Infinite is all things amoral, imoral and moral alike. If your looking for truth there is only one beyond the individual truths of the self and it is a simple one:

The Universe is infinite.

Figure that out and apply its principals to your own personal reality and you’ll be getting somewhere.

PS
Read my quote…