Can Contemporary War Be Just? Elements in the Moral Debate

2021 ◽  
pp. 177-192
Author(s):  
James Turner Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Moral Debate

The Applied Ethics and Habits of Compassionate Reasoning

2021 ◽  
pp. 170-220
Author(s):  
Marc Gopin
Keyword(s):  
Essential Role ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Relationship Building ◽  
Active Listening ◽  
Neural Pathways ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Moral Debate ◽  
The Mind ◽  
And Training

Questions are more important than answers, since they open the mind and strengthen the imagination. The mind imagines the lives of others, the lives of strangers, and better societies. Compassionate Reasoning focuses on eliciting open questions, relationship building, active listening, and moral debate. Neuroscience demonstrates the essential role of repetition in the cultivation of prosocial neural pathways and habits. Modern education has failed thus far to invest in habits that generate reasoning in the service of compassion. Training in science and technology is only as useful as the compassionate lifestyle that it sustains. Without lifelong compassion education and training, STEM can create monstrous economics and dangerous technology. Compassionate societies are sustainable, whereas selfish societies often self-destruct. The more you give with compassion, the healthier you become. Compassionate Reasoning is a liberation from a selfish worldview, and it opens up the person to a flourishing life of service, health, and wisdom.

Negotiating Ethics as a Two Level Debate

1998 ◽  
pp. 254-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert van Es
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Moral Behavior ◽  
Discourse Ethic ◽  
Moral Agents ◽  
Ideal Speech Situation ◽  
Moral Debate ◽  
Common Understanding ◽  
Speech Situation ◽  
The Ideal

As a form of moral debate, discourse ethic, according to Habermas, is based on regulated discussion. Participating moral agents share a common understanding in the ideal speech situation. Following procedures they try to reach consensus on questions of justice and rights. Critics of discourse ethic point to the bias of Western assumptions regarding agents and methods, the danger of elitism, and the optimism and the pacifism that run through the theory. After modification, Habermas distinguishes two types of discourse: the discourse of justification and the discourse of application. The second is inferior to the first. In the second, there is room for negotiating. There is another way of looking at negotiation, one that takes negotiating seriously as an important category of human behavior. This category shows an interesting overlap with moral behavior. Distinguishing four concepts of negotiating and using reciprocity and trust as the moral minimum, Negotiating Ethics is presented as a two level moral debate, close to Habermas but morally different in essential aspects.

scholarly journals Collecting birds: the importance of moral debate

1997 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Bekoff ◽  
Andrzej Elzanowski
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Museum Collections ◽  
Moral Imperative ◽  
Moral Debate

In a recent article in this journal, Remsen (1995) attacked moral (and other) objections to killing birds for museum collections, objections that are frequently raised by the general public and scientific community alike. The only grounds for moral objections against killing birds that Remsen considers and rejects are reverence for all life or personal (p. 157; all page references refer to Remsen 1995), that is sentimental (p. 165) reasons. What Remsen ignores is avian sentience and the moral imperative of respecting it.

The Use of the New Testament in the American Slave Controversy: A Case History in the Hermeneutical Tension between Biblical Criticism and Christian Moral Debate

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Albert Harrill
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Religious Culture ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
Biblical Authority ◽  
Moral Imperative ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Christian Morality ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Moral Debate ◽  
The Relationship

The study of nineteenth-century U.S. biblical exegesis on the slavery question illumines a fundamental paradox in American religious culture. The relationship between the moral imperative of anti-slavery and the evolution of biblical criticism resulted in a major paradigm shift away from literalism. This moral imperative fostered an interpretive approach that found conscience to be a more reliable guide to Christian morality than biblical authority. Yet, the political imperative of proslavery nourished a biblicism that long antedated the proslavery argumentation and remains prevalent in American moral preaching. The nineteenth-century desire to resolve this paradox led to important innovations in American interpretations of the Bible.

Reality and Textuality

1992 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-45
Author(s):  
David D. Cooper ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Education ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Liberal Humanism ◽  
Internal Contradiction ◽  
Moral Debate ◽  
Education Today ◽  
Political Alignments ◽  
Epistemological Relativism

For the past two decades, the humanistic disciplines have been dominated by poststructuralist theories and, more recently, a not unrelated curricular philosophy best defined as hardline multiculturalism, much discussed and often misunderstood. When linked together, they form an internal contradiction that is the moral challenge of liberal education today. Traditional political alignments cannot explain current divisions among the humanities professoriate. Ideological quarrels only obscure a deeper moral debate between an ascendant poststructuralism and a resurgent liberal humanism. It is important to reappropriate liberal humanism in an effort to revitalize humanistic inquiry and renew its place in creative public discourse, and check a danger posed by poststructuralism's fascination with power and epistemological relativism which threaten to erase the ethical border between education and indoctrination.

Strengths of postgraduate research in continuing professional development for professional educationalists

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 138-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Taysum
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Continuing Professional Development ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
Research Curriculum ◽  
Moral Debate ◽  
Postgraduate Research ◽  
Civic Work ◽  
A Site ◽  
The University ◽  
Thinking Tools

The foundation upon which knowledge was provided in universities was a search for truth with four core beliefs. The first was to be critical of the self, the second to be respectful of others, the third to be tolerant of opposing views and the fourth to be committed to the generation of new knowledge. These principles may be found in curriculums of postgraduate research where leaders gain access to the thinking tools required for democratically engaging in civic work, working for social justice and raising standards in their educational communities. This may be achieved by critiquing different conceptualisations of truth while maintaining respect, tolerance and a commitment to the generation of new knowledge. Therefore leaders doing postgraduate research at a university engage with many conceptualisations of truth or discourses that are brought together in their postgraduate research curriculum. This positions the university as a connector of discourses and as such it is a site of public and moral debate that stands against the erosion of the public space where no political, cultural, cognitive or hegemonic discourse is protagonistic. This study examines these claims and reveals how postgraduate research has equipped two leaders to improve practice within their educational communities.

scholarly journals Equity or equality? Moral judgments follow the money

2014 ◽  
Vol 281 (1797) ◽  
pp. 20142112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter DeScioli ◽  
Maxim Massenkoff ◽  
Alex Shaw ◽  
Michael Bang Petersen ◽  
Robert Kurzban
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Moral Disagreement ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Allocation Rule ◽  
Unequal Division ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Moral Debate ◽  
Simple Economic

Previous research emphasizes people's dispositions as a source of differences in moral views. We investigate another source of moral disagreement, self-interest. In three experiments, participants played a simple economic game in which one player divides money with a partner according to the principle of equality (same payoffs) or the principle of equity (payoffs proportional to effort expended). We find, first, that people's moral judgment of an allocation rule depends on their role in the game. People not only prefer the rule that most benefits them but also judge it to be more fair and moral. Second, we find that participants' views about equality and equity change in a matter of minutes as they learn where their interests lie. Finally, we find limits to self-interest: when the justification for equity is removed, participants no longer show strategic advocacy of the unequal division. We discuss implications for understanding moral debate and disagreement.

scholarly journals The Justificatory Argument for Redistribution and Welfare State

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Yixin Chen
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Virtue Ethics ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
The People ◽  
Moral Debate ◽  
Redistribute Income

There is a dispute between welfare liberals and libertarians about whether redistribution of wealth is a rights violation. Welfare liberals believe that a state should redistribute income and wealth. In contrast, libertarians think redistribution is an intervention and a rights violation to the people who earn money in a free market by their inheritance or gifts. In the debate between Rawls and Nozick, there are two main disagreements about the liberty of whom and to what extent natural talents should be considered a shared asset by a state. MacIntyre thinks that Rawls and Nozick’s moral debate is meaningless since there is conceptual incommensurability of the rival arguments in it. His resolution offers a virtue ethics perspective to be a reconciliation, which fails to provide a universal moral principle in a multicultural world. However, a new way to understand the concept of labor seems to give a justificatory argument for redistribution and welfare state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document