Understanding Individual Political Ideology: Determinants and Tolerance

Political polarization and antipathy has grown greatly in the last few decades, causing more than simple political issues, having the ability to hurt regular peoples’ livelihood. The best way to help remedy this issue is for all people, regardless of ideological stance, to see those with a differing stance as decent people with perhaps a different approach. Therefore, understanding what factors make people think a certain way is a must. A two-variable axis was developed for this paper to more objectively measure ideology and to limit false ideological moderation as much as possible. This study used a 3 survey system with 16 unique ideological questions based on common political issues. The study asked for demographic information like Age and Gender, as well as unique factors theism, GPA, and tolerance. Results corroborated those of polling studies, as well as showed that Theism has a strong grip on ethical issues, GPA has very little effect, and those that tolerated opposing ideas tended to have a more traditional ethical view.

Libertarianism, Climate Change, and Individual Responsibility

Much has been written about climate change from an ethical view in general, but less has been written about it from a libertarian point of view in particular. In this paper, I apply the libertarian moral theory to the problem of climate change. I focus on libertarianism’s implications for our individual emissions. I argue that (i) even if our individual emissions cause no harm to others, these emissions cross other people’s boundaries, (ii) although the boundary-crossings that are due to our ‘subsistence emissions’ are implicitly consented to by others, there is no such consent to our ‘non-subsistence emissions’, and (iii) there is no independent justification for these emissions. Although offsetting would provide such a justification, most emitters do not offset their non-subsistence emissions. Therefore, these emissions violate people’s rights, which means that they are impermissible according to libertarianism’s non-aggression principle.

Fallacy of the last bed dilemma

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the relevance of adequate decision making at both public health and healthcare levels. A bioethical response to the demand for medical care, supplies and access to critical care is needed. Ethically sound strategies are required for the allocation of increasingly scarce resources, such as rationing critical care beds. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the so-called ‘last bed dilemma’. In this paper, we examine this dilemma, pointing out the main criteria used to solve it and argue that we cannot face these ethical issues as though they are only a dilemma. A more complex ethical view regarding the care of COVID-19 patients that is focused on proportional and ordinary treatments is required. Furthermore, discussions and forward planning are essential because deliberation becomes extremely complex during an emergency and the physicians’ sense of responsibility may be increased if it is faced only as a moral dilemma.

THE REVIVAL OF VIRTUE ETHICS AS AN ETHICAL VIEW

<span lang="EN-US">Aristotle and Plato were the chief architects of virtue ethics, but their own formulation of virtue ethics was mostly subdued with the appearance of consequentialism as well as Kantian deontology. However, modem thinkers have attempted to revive virtue ethics in its new form and in this regard the name which is popularly known is G.E.M. Anscombe. In fact Anscombe clearly indicates in what sense virtue ethics can be revived and what was wrong with the traditional virtue ethics as expounded by Aristotle and Plato. Anscombe points out three important issues for which traditional virtue ethics perhaps lost its glory. First, moral philosophy in general cannot survive without an adequate philosophy of psychology and this thing was absent in the traditional virtue ethics. Secondly, without psychological possibility the concepts of moral obligation and moral duty, the moral sense of ought to be jeopardized. Thirdly and importantly, the differences between the well-known English writers on moral philosophy from Sidgwick to the present day are of little importance. This task of this paper is to review the revival of virtue ethics</span>

Ethical View of Telemedicine Practices

Telemedicine—the utilization of clinical data and innovation to progress distanced clinical care can change the patient-centered approach. Telemedicine can coordinate distance monitoring and diagnostic instruments with computerized cooperation and suggestions to better interact with patients when they are not in a hospital. Despite these preferences, there is still some doubt as to how telemedicine applications may affect care. Guaranteeing that telemedicine is ethically admissible requires projection and consideration of four potential issues: the disruption of the patient-physician relationship, jeopardizing patient privacy, impelling one-size-fits-all applications, and the impulse to expect that innovation should be efficient

A Particularist but Codifiable Virtue Ethics

Moral particularism of the kind developed by Jonathan Dancy is treated as a topic in meta-ethics. Until it is applied to a suitable type of normative theory criticisms which have assailed it are difficult to rebut. This chapter aims to apply Dancy’s particularism to target centred virtue ethics, showing how many of these criticisms are off the mark. At the core of these criticisms is that of uncodifiability. Virtue ethics is held to be codifiable through the virtue rules which encode virtue-reasons for action, reasons which are argued to be particularist in Dancy’s sense. That is it is possible even for reasons expressed through the thick virtue concepts to switch valence. In the course of the argument a virtue ethical view of right action (the target-centred view) is further developed.

The Revival of Virtue Ethics As an Ethical View

Aristotle and Plato were the chief architects of virtue ethics, but their own formulation of virtue ethics was mostly subdued with the appearance of consequentialism as well as Kantian deontology. However, modem thinkers have attempted to revive virtue ethics in its new form and in this regard the name which is popularly known is G.E.M. Anscombe. In fact Anscombe clearly indicates in what sense virtue ethics can be revived and what was wrong with the traditional virtue ethics as expounded by Aristotle and Plato. Anscombe points out three important issues for which traditional virtue ethics perhaps lost its glory. First, moral philosophy in general cannot survive without an adequate philosophy of psychology and this thing was absent in the traditional virtue ethics. Secondly, without psychological possibility the concepts of moral obligation and moral duty, the moral sense of ought to be jeopardized. Thirdly and importantly, the differences between the well-known English writers on moral philosophy from Sidgwick to the present day are of little importance. This task of this paper is to review the revival of virtue ethics.