Talk:Ethics
|
|
Talk:Ethics/Archive Talk:Ethics/Archive 2
| This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Contents |
Moral vs. Ethics
I have always thought that ethics was more involved with obligations than with moral, but of course I am an engineer, used to think of ethics in these terms. That is why I cannot comprehend how the definition for ethics says that it is a science if it involves moral affairs, because latin mores has a clear implication of customs or uses of a majority. In principle, it seems that the definition of ethics I see here implies a rational thinking in ethics matters ("it is a science"), but also seems that mixing ethics and moral gives away any rationality, since custom have no rational basis.
I think that moral belongs to anthropology, describing customs, and ethics to philosophy, describing obligations. You could insert here any quotation from Cicero's "On Dutys", of course, but this is such a beatiful book that I am not going to spoil you the thrill of reading it ...
You can clearly anticipate that, after saying that ethics has anything to do with moral, you finally arrive to Moral core discussions. How could it be any other way? I do not think you should argue about ethics with a Bible or a Koran or a Book of the Deads in your hand (all moral books). That is, I think, the reason behind excluding any religious influence in most recent constitutions. Please note this is my personal opinion and I am not doing my homework properly to try to NPOV this one.
Can someone explain the mixing of moral and ethics to me? Maybe the authors, please? Not that I am going to change anything in the text... but I would add a sixth (unrecognized) definition: ethics = science of rational behavior
Moral Core
There is currently a Votes for Deletion debate going on about Moral Core. I would appreciate knowing whether people here think ['Moral Core' is a valid subject or not (and if not - should we change this page as well??)The Land 15:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is ethics futile?
I don't quite understand why the change by 68.252.236.87 was done. Perhaps it should be reverted, there seems to be less information now? --Paraphelion 06:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ethics vs. politics vs. religion vs. practice
I wonder if this should be adapted slightly to take account of the (reasonably popular) suggestion in moral philosophy that rights are a misleading way of characterising morality?
Normative ethics
I've also never come accross the distinction in Normative Ethics between Theories of Conduct and Theories of value; it seems to me that the former is bound to be based on the latter: whether or not your conduct is "good" depends upon which/what value(s) you associate with "good"?
Help needed on a parallel Ethics article
Unfortunately, someone set up an article parallel to this article on Ethics, in violation of Wikipedia policy. That parallel article violated NPOV by acting as a blog for one man's personal views, a person that also happens to be hard-banned user. Please see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Simple view of ethics and morals
Thanks for your time. RK 20:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
announcing policy proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Existentialism
I have changed the article about Jean-Paul Sartre. Sure, he was not alone when developping existentialism, but the best definition of it is his book "L'existentialisme est un humanisme". No other philosopher had ever defined it really.
Is this a reason to say he was the only existentialist ? Sure not. Can he be considered THE major existentialist ? Definitely.
--213.103.59.235 11:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Series
Anyone think we should create a Series/Guide to all the articles to do with ethics, rather like the way Green_politics is done? Anybody know how to do this?
Series
Anyone think we should create a Series/Guide to all the articles to do with ethics, rather like the way Green_politics is done? Anybody know how to do this?
Science's need for ethics
I'm of the opinion that the claims made in the article about the importance of ethics in actual sciences, such as biology and ecology are a bit misleading, and are trying to turn fields such as bioethics into actual science. Claiming that bioethics is science is akin to claiming that the universe cares what our current opinions are (see naturalistic fallacy, is-ought problem). Rather than state that ethics is "important" to the scientific fields, it might be better to state that ethics "has been extended" into these fields. --brian0918™ 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)