Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
From the PAP definition "a person is morally responsible for what they have done only if they could have done otherwise", Frankfurt infers that a person is not morally responsible for what they have done if they could not have done otherwise – a point with which he takes issue: our theoretical ability to do otherwise, he says, does not necessarily make it possible for us to do otherwise.
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever…
For example, someone who claims "something is morally right for me to do because the people in my culture think it is right" is both a moral relativist (because what is right and wrong depends on who is doing it), and an ethical subjectivist (because what is right and wrong is determined by mental states, i.e. what people think is right and wrong).
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Hyperbolic discounting leads to choices that are inconsistent over time—people make choices today that their future selves would prefer not to have made, despite using the same reasoning. [52] Also known as current moment bias or present bias, and related to Dynamic inconsistency. A good example of this is a study showed that when making food ...
However, choices which are made on a person's behalf in their best interest do show a tendency for choice-supportive memory bias. Random selection: People do not show choice-supportive biases when choices are made randomly for them. [12] This is because choice-supportive memory bias tends to arise during the act of making the decision.
The argument from disagreement, also known as the argument from relativity, first observes that there is a lot of intractable moral disagreement: people disagree about what is right and what is wrong. [3] Mackie argues that the best explanation of this is that right and wrong are invented, not objective truths.
Read Next: 3 Sneaky Things You Didn’t Realize Your Tax Software Was Doing — And How to Stop Them This Year Experts explained why your goal should be to keep tax refunds as small as possible ...