This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faust~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 11:42, 8 July 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:42, 8 July 2010 by Faust~enwiki (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], ]
For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
|
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links : |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Philosophy: Ethics Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This page is diabolical
So I changed it towards the better.
With all the morality that I have studied in my life, was I totally dissapointed about the misinformation which has been posted on this page. You people explain everything about morality except the fact what it really is, accept the fact that you know nothing about it. Public morality died 1500 years ago, most flawed statements prove this time and time again.
Phalanx Pursos 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
possible logical flaw
"The subjectiveness of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not cause any harm may be by some considered immoral"
it is true that one may observe that some others consider an action or belief immoral while at the same time observing that that action or belief causes no harm. Why does this imply subjectivity? It may be that your observations of harm has nothing to do with whatever objective measuring stick is used but the moralists.
If however, you mean to imply that the act of causing harm itself is a measure of subjectiveness, then morality is objective by your standards - it is whether or not you cause harm to others.
This renders this statement logically flawed, contradictory, naive, and combined with the politically charged gay marriage example, brings to question the matter of the writers bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.71.216 (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Moral Realism in the introduction
This sentence in the introduction: "Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "
Is pretty unclear. The best I can break it down is:
"moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism) (Other stuff). And Moral anti-realism falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). "
Seems like "falsely presupposes" violates some kind of fair and neutral rule.
Am I just reading this sentence wrong? Is it trying to say that anti-realism holds that morality is derived from a false presuppositions that there are objective moral facts? If that's the case, it seems like that is redundant with the examples already listed.
Should the sentence read: "moral anti-realism would hold that morality falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory) and is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); or is an implied imperative (prescriptive);"??
I'd change it if I knew what the sentence was actually trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecnassianer (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Did the pedestrian die?
This section is pretty suspcious: the article it points to seems nothing more than a bunch of ludicrous cultural stereotypes (e.g. it asserts that the French subject turned traitor very quickly, needing only to be plied with cigarettes). The discussion page of that article raises these concerns but I can see none here, can someone who knows anything at all about the book verify that it exists, is relevant to what is being asserted here, and that the whole thing isn't just a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.182.72 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
notes on categorization
I place the category "Concepts in Religious Metaphysics" and "Pseudo-Information Science," because the religious metaphysics doesn't utilize a developed methodology, hence the theories are not real (meaning it is implausible to occur or even perform a computerized simulation). Note that Philosophy isn't psuedoscience because they have an established method that is well develop through phenomenology / contemporary philosophy (aka philosophical method based on intuition, gut feeling, perspective, insight...etc psychological phenomenon (but regardless in partial some phenomenon are provable through neuroscience).
So please present some firm mediums such as books and research rather than blatantly presenting controversial topics (e.g. creationism vs evolution).
If you are interested in Religious Studies, I suggest trying to present a possible clear studies on how the religious concepts maybe evolved in different religion to present a clearer picture of Notion. Thanks for your time in reading this --75.154.186.99 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Morality and Politics
I think this subject is inappropriate for this article, because it repeats some information and presents info on what liberals and conservatives in the US generally think. I don't think this content is harmful, so I'm not removing the whole section for now, but I'd like to see if someone else thinks the section contains no information the article needs that isn't already present elsewhere in the article. Rustyfence (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Below a submission for an addition.
Morality in teleology and deontology
In formal ethics morality is used as meaning the 'good' action. A disambiguation can be made however. In teleological ethics the word 'moral' is used as a synonym for ethics. In deontological ethics 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 universal law. 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. --Faust (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: