Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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).
A person that does this is the best because they are fulfilling their purpose or nature as found in the rational soul, similar to how the best horse in a chariot race is the fastest horse etcetera. (The wise person will) be more than human. A man will not live like that by virtue of his humanness, but by virtue of some divine thing within him.
That is, they are dispositions that involve both being able to reason well about the right thing to do (see below on phronesis), and also to engage emotions and feelings correctly. For example, a generous person can reason well about when and how to help people, and such a person also helps people with pleasure and without conflict.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Moral skeptics say that people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior, thereby rejecting the idea that moral knowledge is possible. A common objection by critics of moral skepticism asserts that it leads to immoral behavior. [126] The trolley problem is a thought experiment about the moral difference between doing and ...
Some people want to give states the right to reject resettlements, and there's a bill in Congress that was filed last year that would do just that. So we'll be watching that as well. Taylor Wilson:
The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right) goes by a variety of names, including intellectualism, rationalism, realism, naturalism, and objectivism. Roughly, it is the view that there are independent moral standards: some actions are right or wrong in themselves, independent of God's commands.
The backfire effect is a name for the finding that given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly. [138] [139] The phrase was coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010. [140] However, subsequent research has since failed to replicate findings supporting the backfire effect. [141]