Talk:Ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 To-do list for Ethics: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
Talk:Ethics/Archive Talk:Ethics/Archive 2
236.87 was done. Perhaps it should be reverted, there seems to be less information now? --Paraphelion 06:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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"?
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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?
What about Kierkegaard? Could he not also be called THE existentialist? Surely he could.
[edit] Series
Quote: "What about Kierkegaard? Could he not also be called THE existentialist? Surely he could"
Ya he was a major existentialist, but there were others who may have been more profound than Kierkegaard. but thats just my opinion.
````
[edit] 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)
[edit] Critique
Section by section:
Intro: Does not summarise the article.
History: just a list of names. Not really distinct from the history of western philosophy - so what is the point of having this section?
Definitions: "at least five" - then lists six.
Ethics in religion: no more than a link - remove it? Summarise the main articles?
Ethics in health care: Perhaps divide into ethics and medical ethics with summaries of main articles?
Ethics in politics: no such thing... Perhaps link to Machiavelli?
Ethics by case: needs some serious work - is their a main article for this to link to?
Is ethics futile: what purpose has this section? perhaps move etymology to top?
Origins: original research? Ethology as animal ethics? strange stuff, I think.
Banno 11:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comments on critique from a non-english user: history: necessary but needs a total revision and ampliation
major theories: please, not write just links to article, you could add a brief definition of each one
futile: agree with banno
why origins is so far from history?
- I agree that the history section continues to need major work but it remains a necessary part of the article. I think that the origins section could be brought further up the article (perhaps content merged with history) The ethics by case section is unclear. Perhaps it should be rewritten as ethics in law (in keeping with other headings) and just contain a summary of casuistry for which there is already a well developed article. --Vincej 15:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
== In ethics and political science. == To promote the common good means to benefit members of the society.
[edit] Online External review Dec 17 2005
User:Perspective16 notes that Michael Cook has unfavorably characterized this article. --Ancheta Wis 01:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation link to Scientology Ethics
I intend to revert the removal of the Ethics (Scientology) link, probably through a proper, full disambiguation page linked from this article, as per Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines. The removal of the link did not include a reason. --Davidstrauss 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Review of Consequentialism
I have been working for a couple of months on Consequentialism and recently submitted it for peer review. If anyone here can offer me any advice as to how to proceed with this article, I would appreciate it greatly. Ig0774 01:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moral Problems
We are faced with moral problems on a daily basis: Is 30 dollars enough to charge? Is abortion justified under certain circumstances? Should the doctor lie to Grandma about her heart condition? When we think about these things, we usually draw on moral rules that govern our lives. Whether they are rules about business transactions, the value of human life, or simply telling the truth. These rules depend upon certtain principles, and these principles have their basis in the Theological. We can trace almost any ethic to biblical material on morality. The Ten Commandments are basically moral rules for living and behaving responsibility, the sanctity of life, the marriage relationship, and the responsibility of telling the truth. Several applications take place in the book of Exodus. The moral law was the standard of the kind of society that existed in the Old Testament. It's remnant exists in our society today. Moral principles are all inclusive concepts not just applicable to the particular kinds of activities as in Exodus, but universally to every kind of involvement whatever that may be.
[edit] Ethics as a Methodology
ETHICS is the name of a computer science Analysis and Design methodology. Further disambiguation required?
[edit] Business Ethics
There are many topics related to business ethics those I think should be discussed here.
Business man - Customer Ethics
Business man - Employee Relations
etc I am not good at this.. just thought this could be discussed
fsds --
? Add Ethical Consumerism to the see also list 88.109.152.209 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Morals vs Ethics
Although similar, and often confused, there is a distinction between morals and ethics. Ethics is a prescriptive code, whereas morals can differ between individuals. I think it would be a good idea to raise this distinction, any objections? ThePedro 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Descriptive Ethics back to a Sub-Head
I am quite uncomfortable with promoting descriptive ethics to the same headings as the other main branches of ethics in the opening section, especially since the introduction says there are three main branches, and descriptive is not one of them! I know this is a current discussion in the field, but I don't think this sort of change should be accepted here until it is accepted in the larger philosophical community. It definitely deserves space here, but it should be clearly indicated that this is a novelty, and not something that is generally accepted. I was astonished when my students began talking about descriptive ethics as a "main branch." Now I see why! Robert Johnson 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
these ethics are rong
[edit] Ethics in Psychology/Ethics in professions
Ethics in psychology, especially regarding the subjects of psychological experiments, warrants separate mention from medical ethics.
Ethics in psychology should be renamed psychological ethical theories or something along those lines, as the title implies a discussion of ethical guidelines in psychology. I'm a bit too busy at the moment to write about it, but any discussion of that subject should include reference to Milgram's landmark study and probably Watson's experiment with the baby. I forget the years.
24.17.211.229 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Peter Comerford
[edit] Call me naïve...
... but "However, most persons would argue that ethics are overrated." qualifies as one of the dumbest statements ever to be found on a Wikipedia article which appears to have been written in cold blood... especially in an introduction... removed. Carl Turner 18:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ethicism?
I found an article titled Ethicism, which seems to be a neologism describing the practice of ethics, which is, as I see it...ethics. I wonder if anyone is interested in salvaging anything from that (hopelessly POV and OR - filled) article and then having it redirect here. Chubbles 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Choices vs. consequences" section
I've just removed the following vague sounding/possible original research from the article:
- Consequences of personal choices may impact on other people and any associated responsibilities may extend into a wider society. They are major factors in life, as they determine one's relationships with oneself and with others. One's choices often affect one's ethics in a much more grand scheme. Negative choices often create a "numbness" due to familiarity with the negativity (A creates B which perpetuates A, with A being the negative choice and B being the "numbness" due to it), furthering one's negativity. This is known as a downward spiral. In the reverse of this, known as an upward spiral, the same thing occurs but it furthers one's positive aspects; these aspects, whether negative or positive, affect one's life and therefore one's ethics, and so must be largely considered in this article.
[edit] Requested move
The philosophical topic is the primary topic of the word compared with all the other articles linked from the disambiguation page Ethics, and is reasonably what people expect when they search "ethics". The user who made the original move in October was thinking "practical", but this is covered by applied ethics as linked here, not on the dab page. –Pomte 09:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given what other pages exist, this move seems reasonable to me. There are other uses not covered on the disambiguation page, however; which makes me wonder whether or not there is room for an Ethics, an Ethics (philosophy), and an Ethics (disambiguation). But that's something can be dealt with at a later time, I suppose. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've performed the requested move. (I'm not sure if there was some requirement to wait a number of days for debate, but I saw the old Ethics page in CAT:CSD and took action.) Could those editors who maintain this article take care of checking redirects and links and update anything that looks inappropriate? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No double redirects; all fixed by User:Computer it seems. The vast majority of incoming links are still to Ethics anyway, so nothing more needs to be done. Thanks. –Pomte 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
