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 .
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.
Sociologists of morality ask questions on why particular groups of people have the moral views that they do, and what are the effects of these views on behavior, interaction, structure, change, and institutions. [1] [2]
A moral relativist who claims that you should act according to the laws in whatever country you are a citizen of, accepts all three claims: moral facts express propositions that can be true or false (you can see if a given action is against the law or not), some moral propositions are true (some actions abide by the laws in someone's country ...
Natural science can help humans understand the natural world, but according to Bernard Davis, it cannot make policy, moral, or behavioral decisions. [7] Davis considers questions involving values — what people should do - to be more effectively addressed through discourse in social sciences, not by restriction of basic science. [ 7 ]
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.
Jeane Kirkpatrick, in her essay The Myth of Moral Equivalence (1986) [78] saw the Soviet Union's whataboutism as an attempt to use moral reasoning to present themselves as a legitimate superpower on an equal footing with the United States. The comparison was inadmissible in principle, since there was only one legitimate superpower, the USA, and ...
Instead ethical subjectivism claims that moral truths are based on the mental states of individuals or groups of people. The moral realist is committed to some version of the following three statements: [8] [9] The semantic thesis: Moral statements have meaning, they express propositions, or are the kind of things that can be true or false.