Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The question before the court was whether "incapable of distinguishing right from wrong" refers to distinguishing between moral right and moral wrong, vs. being able to distinguish what is legal from what is not legal. [3]: 615 The court concluded: "that the term 'wrong' in the statutory definition of insanity refers to moral wrong."
Political ethics (also known as political morality or public ethics) is the practice of making moral judgments about political action and political agents. [1] It covers two areas: the ethics of process (or the ethics of office), which covers public officials and their methods, [2] [3] and the ethics of policy (or ethics and public policy), which concerns judgments surrounding policies and laws.
Moral wrong is an underlying concept for legal wrong. Some moral wrongs are punishable by law, for example, rape or murder. [2] Other moral wrongs have nothing to do with law but are related to unethical behaviours. [3] On the other hand, some legal wrongs, such as many types of parking offences, could hardly be classified as moral wrongs. [2]
Normative ethics – concerns what people should believe to be right and wrong. Consequentialism – moral theories that hold that the consequences of one's conduct are the true basis for any judgement about the morality of that conduct. Thus, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome (the end justifies the means).
It is generally agreed that torture is inherently morally wrong because all forms of torture "involve the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting and defenceless person", although it does not necessarily follow that torture is wrong in all circumstances. [2]
Legal moralism is the theory of jurisprudence and the philosophy of law which holds that laws may be used to prohibit or require behavior based on society's collective judgment of whether it is moral. It is often given as an alternative to legal liberalism, which holds that laws may only be used to the extent that they promote liberty. [1]
Moral injury is a relatively new concept that seems to describe what many feel: a sense that their fundamental understanding of right and wrong has been violated, and the grief, numbness or guilt that often ensues. Here, you will meet combat veterans struggling with the moral and ethical ambiguities of war.
Conversely, a moral relativist could deny moral subjectivism if they thought that the morally right thing to do was to follow the written laws of your country (this morality is relativist since "the laws of your country" picks out different laws for different individuals, but not subjectivist since it is dependent on the written laws, which are ...