scholarly journals On Divergence of “Morality” and “Ethics”

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Ruben G. Apressyan ◽  

The divergence of Russian concepts “moral'” and “nravstvennost'” (in German “Sittlichkeit”, in English “ethics”/“ethical life”, in French “éthique”) in various versions is quite common in literature and can be taken as a doubtless discursive fact. Usually such divergence is a re­sult of substantialization of some functional and normative features of morality/ethics distin­guished by philosophy. Internal heterogeneity is inherent in morality/ethics both at functional and normative levels. A special analysis of various attempts to discriminate “morality” and “ethics” is needed to clarify the theoretical and methodological prerequisites of such diver­gence, its principal expediency, probable rationale and possible ‘gaps’. For authors outside of philosophy, especially moral philosophy, the separation of “morality” and “ethics” often turns out to be the last stage in their contemplation of morality-ethics with an evident disregard of conceptual apparatus developed in moral philosophy to conceptualize the phenomenon of morality/ethics in its internal heterogeneity and polyvalence. It would be an oversimplifica­tion to think that attempts to diverge morality and ethics have been always a result of theoret­ical misunderstandings. On the contrary, the divergence may be motivated by convincing the­oretical reasons and authors who apply such approach commonly consider it as a fruitful way to enhance our understanding of normative culture and normative experience. The article attempts to analyze in the first approximation some projects in divergence of morality and ethics. The author of the article does not believe that the distinction of morality and ethics is truly sufficient, but does not exclude that such attempts being consistently implemented could have some positive theoretical effects, and should be evaluated in each individual case.

1995 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra A. DeBruin

A note of urgency can sometimes be heard, even in otherwise unhurried writers, when they ask for a justification of morality. Unless the ethical life, or (more narrowly) morality, can be justified by philosophy, we shall be open to relativism, amoralism, and disorder. As they often put it: when an amoralist calls ethical considerations in doubt, and suggests that there is no reason to follow the requirements of morality, what can we say to him?Why should one be moral? This question is nearly as old as the discipline of moral philosophy itself; it has been troubling ethicists ever since Glaucon challenged Socrates to disprove that “the life of the unjust man is much better than that of the just.” To find an answer to the question of why one should be moral has been taken to be one of the most fundamental tasks of moral philosophy. And even a casual survey of the history of ethics will reveal that there are many ways of trying to answer the question.


2018 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-444
Author(s):  
Amir Saemi ◽  

I will argue that Avicenna’s and Aquinas’s faith-based virtue ethics are crucially different from Aristotle’s virtue ethics, in that their ethics hinges on the theological notion of heaven, which is constitutively independent of the ethical life of the agent. As a result, their faith-based virtue ethics is objectionable. Moreover, I will also argue that the notion of heaven that Avicenna and Aquinas deploy in their moral philosophy is problematic; for it can rationally permit believers to commit morally horrendous actions. Finally, I will present a Kantian notion of heaven which is immune to the aforementioned moral objection. The Kantian notion of heaven, nevertheless, cannot ground any view of ethics as it is constitutively dependent on the ethical life of the agent.


Author(s):  
D. Micah Hester

The professional field of bioethics arose in the late 20th century, but many of its substantive characteristics were anticipated, even guided, by pragmatism in general and John Dewey specifically. Bioethics speaks to conditions of wellness and affliction, and these conditions occur within human experience and differ for each human being. Dewey’s moral philosophy is grounded on contextual experience—or “soft” particularism—in order to develop and identify ethical norms. This is brought into stark relief when he discusses healthcare and the practice of physicians, where Dewey implores us to remember that “health” is not a concept to be understood abstractly but must be seen within the context of living individuals. Physicians, in turn, are reminded that their own practices must not focus narrowly on basic science and simple mechanics, but must be “artistic,” using those sciences “to furnish . . . tools of inquiry into the individual case.”


Topoi ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janna Van Grunsven

AbstractIn this paper I home in on an ethical phenomenon that is powerfully elucidated by means of enactive resources but that has, to my knowledge, not yet been explicitly addressed in the literature. The phenomenon in question concerns what I will term the paradox of moral perception, which, to be clear, does not refer to a logical but to a phenomenological-practical paradoxicality. Specifically, I have in mind the seemingly contradictory phenomenon that perceiving persons as moral subjects is at once incredibly easy and incredibly difficult; it is something we do nearly effortlessly and successfully all the time without giving it much thought and it is something that often requires effort and that we fail at all the time (also often without giving it much thought). As I will argue, enactivism offers distinctive resources for explaining the paradoxical nature of moral perception. These resources, moreover, bring out two important dimensions of ethical life that are frequently overlooked in contemporary ethical theory: namely the embodied and socio-technical environment-embedded dimensions of moral perception and moral visibility. As I make my argument, I will be connecting enactivism with insights from David Hume’s and Iris Murdoch’s moral philosophy as well as insights from the field of Epistemic Injustice. As such, I aim to situate enactivism within the larger theoretical ethical landscape; showing connections with existing ethical theories and identifying some of the ways in which enactivism offers unique contributions to our understanding of ethical life. While doing so, I will furthermore introduce two forms of moral misperception: particular moral misperception and categorial moral misperception.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.


1990 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 891-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Alan Boneau
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document