| Revision as of 09:04, 1 September 2010 editFaust~enwiki (talk | contribs)492 edits →Reference with definitions immorality and amorality← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:05, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,025,615 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (351 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{User:WildBot/m01|dabs={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Counterpunch}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|degenerate}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|reciprocity}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|right}}|m01}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Altruism#Altruism in ethology and evolutionary biology|Altruism}}|m04}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{VA|topic=Philosophy|level=2|class=Start}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|ethics=yes}} |
| ⚫ |
{{talkheader|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{philosophy|class=start|importance=mid|ethics=yes}} |
|
|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot|age=180|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:Morality/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:Morality/Archive index |
| Line 11: |
Line 10: |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|algo = old(100d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Morality/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Morality/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
<!-- |
|
|
|
|
|
== Small deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Paragraph "In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge.." deleted as not relevant to morals as construct/in definition. Whilst I like the first sentence I couldn't leave it standalone. The remainder, in my opinion, is of the class "this group of people (pundits) ''definitely'' do action (pose politically)", which strikes me as unnecessary/POV. ] 18:10 04 AUG 06 |
|
|
|
|
|
== article quality and distribution of topics == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sociology articles are a big weakness of Misplaced Pages's. We tend to acquire commonplace comments and clichés under each possible ''term'' which then tend to sit there tagged for cleanup for years. |
|
|
|
|
|
Check out the following articles: |
|
|
:], ], ], ], ] |
|
|
and consider how exactly their scope is delimited relative to one another and to this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
It would be important to have ''fewer'' articles, and make sure the ones we keep are short and to the point, directly guiding the reader to the most relevant academic literature on the topic. --] <small>]</small> 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below a submission for an addition. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Morality in teleology and deontology == |
|
|
|
|
|
In formal ] morality is used as meaning the 'good' action. A disambiguation can be made however. In ] the word 'moral' is used as a ] for ethics. In ] the word 'moral' is used in a more narrow sense: that act of which one can at the same time will that it becomes a ] ]. A remarkable consequence of this is that teleological ethics is immoral from a deontological viewpoint. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the seperation 'moral' considerations. The scholarly issues are complex, with some writers seeing Kant as more Aristotelian, and Aristotle as more involved with a separate sphere of responsibility and duty, than the simple contrast suggests.'' |
|
|
Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240 |
|
|
|
|
|
I will make a reference out of this quote, but we might include this quote, for reference purposes. Let me know if any one has any feedback. --] (]) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for forgetting the sig... |
|
|
--] (]) 11:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Since no reactions have been given I will add this under an ethical header. If needs be we can discuss things here after that still. |
|
|
--] (]) 07:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Ok, after reading the introduction I placed the little part there (with a small edit to suit the place in the text). Since the entire heading was already about ethics and a mention of the word usage of the word 'morality' in ethics this seemed prudent. |
|
|
--] (]) 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reference with definitions immorality and amorality== |
|
|
I had placed a reference with the definitions mentioned aboven, but this has been removed for an unclear reason. The fact is that Kant defines these in his 'Kritik der Reinen Vernunft' and it seems to me that definitions like that should be referred to a source at all times. Now, a user has removed this reference for reasons of inappropriateness. I hereby state that I will replace the reference, unless a really good reason will be given why a reference of a definition should not be given. --] (]) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
This concerns this reference: Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Immanuel Kant, P25 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Correction needed to 3rd paragraph of Introduction? == |
|
:First of all, could you please quote Kant's definitions and specify the reference (for instance, which edition of the Kritik are you talking about?). My main objection however is the fact that Kant held a very ''specific'' view on morality. Referring to his particular definitions of related terms in the article's first paragraph, which as I wrote is supposed to be a ''general'' introduction to the term "morality", would therefore be inappropriate. ] (]) 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sentence does not make sense “I fear that I am leading can become a universal law.” It feels like something is missing from this quote. Unfortunately the source referenced, philosophyverse.com, contains the same quote, and other aspects of the way that source article is written, suggest it is a badly corrected piece written by an AI ] (]) 13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
Look, the entire point Kant is making and why this part of the article is UNCPECIFIC is the difference between im- and a-. The deontological idea of morality that I am sure you are referring to is a specific one, but follows from the meaning of the word. So, you are merely confusing the two issues. It is your removal and comments that are inappropriate. --] (]) 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
This sentence does not make sense “I fear that I am leading can become a universal law.” It feels like something is missing from this quote. Unfortunately the source referenced, philosophyverse.com, contains the same quote, and other aspects of the way that source article is written, suggest it is a badly corrected piece written by an AI 62.92.121.39 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
