Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This led some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist Edward Westermarck (1862–1939) ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He portrayed all moral ideas as subjective judgments that reflect ...
An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." [ 3 ] [ 4 ] Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e., opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or ...
Moral objectivism is the view that what is right or wrong does not depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong, [21] but rather on how it affects people's well-being. . Moral objectivism allows for moral codes to be compared to each other through a set of universal f
A recent large-scale (u = 336,691) analysis of sex differences based on the five moral foundations suggested that women consistently score higher on care, fairness, and purity across 67 cultures. [53] However, loyalty and authority were shown to have negligible sex differences, highly variable across cultures.
In natural science, the moralistic fallacy can result in rejection or suppression of basic science, whose goal is understanding the natural world, on account of its potential misuse in applied science, whose goal is the development of technology or technique. [4]
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 increasing sophistication of justice-based reasoning was taken as a sign of development. Moral cognitive development, in turn, was assumed to be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for moral action. [34] But researchers using the Kohlberg model found a gap between what people said was most moral and actions they took.
The fact–value distinction is also closely related to the moralistic fallacy, an invalid inference of factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises. For example, an invalid inference "Because everybody ought to be equal, there are no innate genetic differences between people" is an instance of the moralistic fallacy.