Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism in British English) is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible.
Referential fallacy [45] – assuming that all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object (e.g.: Pegasus) or that the meaning comes from how they are used (e.g.: "nobody" was in the room).
After experiencing a bad outcome with a decision problem, the tendency to avoid the choice previously made when faced with the same decision problem again, even though the choice was optimal. Also known as "once bitten, twice shy" or "hot stove effect". [105] Mere exposure effect or familiarity principle (in social psychology)
He also states that one should be careful not to use this ambiguity as an excuse to recklessly violate ethical rules. [ 3 ] Conservative journalist Victor Lasky wrote in his book It Didn't Start With Watergate that, while two wrongs do not make a right, if a set of immoral things are done and left unprosecuted, this creates a legal precedent .
Moral nihilism, also called ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical position that no morality or ethics exists whatsoever; therefore, no action is ever morally preferable to any other. Moral nihilism is distinct from both moral relativism and expressivism in that it does not acknowledge socially constructed values as personal or cultural moralities.
She adds that using the word “should” can unwittingly lead to feelings of shame, as if they should have already known and done better. Dr. Danda points to one alternative: “I have some ideas ...
Ethical non-monogamy has gained more visibility in the modern dating scene, but there’s still a lot of mystery surrounding what the heck that even means. Many people who are curious about ...
Individual moral agents do not know everything about their particular situations, and thus do not know all the possible consequences of their potential actions. For this reason, some theorists have argued that consequentialist theories can only require agents to choose the best action in line with what they know about the situation. [ 42 ]