enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Consequentialism - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

    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 ]

  3. Moral relativism - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

    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]

  4. Ought implies can - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ought_implies_can

    Ought implies can" [1] is an ethical formula ascribed to Immanuel Kant that claims an agent, if morally obliged to perform a certain action, must logically be able to perform it: For if the moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human beings.

  5. Ethics - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

    They do not aim to describe how people normally act, what moral beliefs ordinary people have, how these beliefs change over time, or what ethical codes are upheld in certain social groups. These topics belong to descriptive ethics and are studied in fields like anthropology , sociology , and history rather than normative ethics.

  6. The science behind why people think they're right when they ...

    www.aol.com/science-behind-why-people-think...

    When you only know half of the information, it's easy to think you're right. There may be a psychological reason why some people aren’t just wrong in an argument — they’re confidently wrong.

  7. Moral Injury: The Recruits - The ... - The Huffington Post

    projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/moral...

    You just can’t communicate the knowledge of war to somebody else. It’s something that you know or don’t know, and once you know it you can’t un-know it and you have to deal with that knowledge,” explained Stephen Canty, a thoughtful 24-year-old who went through boot camp here in 2007, before his two combat deployments to Afghanistan.

  8. Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

    The term naturalistic fallacy is sometimes used to label the problematic inference of an ought from an is (the is–ought problem). [3] Michael Ridge relevantly elaborates that "[t]he intuitive idea is that evaluative conclusions require at least one evaluative premise—purely factual premises about the naturalistic features of things do not entail or even support evaluative conclusions."

  9. Moral Injury: The Grunts - The ... - The Huffington Post

    projects.huffingtonpost.com/moral-injury/the-grunts

    Most people enter military service “with the fundamental sense that they are good people and that they are doing this for good purposes, on the side of freedom and country and God,” said Dr. Wayne Jonas, a military physician for 24 years and president and CEO of the Samueli Institute, a non-profit health research organization. “But things ...