Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term had some currency in polemic debates about the Cold War .
Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. [7]
In both wars, context made it tricky to deal with moral challenges. What is moral in combat can at once be immoral in peacetime society. Shooting a child-warrior, for instance. In combat, eliminating an armed threat carries a high moral value of protecting your men. Back home, killing a child is grotesquely wrong.
A world of only rocks would have no good or bad. A world with one thinking being in it would have plenty of good and bad—some things would work out as that being wanted them, others wouldn't. It could even have moral conflict of a sort, as that one thinker may have trouble rendering his own ideals consistent with one another.
Moral conversion, according to Lonergan, is one of three different types of conversion along with the intellectual and the religious conversion. [9] From a causal point of view, it is the difference between varying levels of consciousness leading to a higher sense of responsibility for the world.
"Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical" is an essay by John Rawls, published in 1985. [1] In it he describes his conception of justice. It comprises two main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.
Moral justifications are often used by terrorists to defend their atrocious conduct. [58] On the other hand, the justification of counterterrorist measures is a moral dilemma especially faced by democratic societies; the loss of innocent lives during these measures has to be justified while obeying a civilised society's moral codes. [59]
He argues that, if one were to believe that there are no objective morals, then to engage in moralism is a deceptive behavior. It is wrong because it harms one’s epistemological integrity. Furthermore, by refusing to make moral judgements generally, people would be more likely to engage with others in a more genuine fashion.