9.The more complicated situation wherein oneis torn between choosing one of two goodsor choosing between the lesser of two evils.10. When an observer makes an assessment onthe actions or behavior of someone.11.The development of character traits so thatchoosing the good becomes a matter ofhabit.12.Thisreferstorulesthatareunrelatedtomoralorethicalconsiderations.Enumeration3 levels of Moral dilemma13.14.15.“philia” and “Sophia” which translate to“love of wisdom.8.A situation that calls for moral valuation.9.The more complicated situation wherein oneis torn between choosing one of two goodsor choosing between the lesser of two evils.10. When an observer makes an assessment onthe actions or behavior of someone.11.The development of character traits so thatchoosing the good becomes a matter ofhabit.12.Thisreferstorulesthatareunrelatedtomoralorethicalconsiderations.Enumeration3 levels of Moral dilemma13.14.15. Show
Abstract In symmetrical moral dilemmas, the agent faces a choice between two incompatible actions, which are equally justified on the basis of the same value. These cases are generally discounted as spurious or irrelevant on the assumption that, when there is no failure of commensurability, choice between symmetrical requirements is indifferent and can be determined by randomization. Alternatively, this article argues that the appeal to randomization allows the agent to overcome a deliberative impasse, but it does not really resolve the moral dilemma. This is because randomization fails to provide the agent with a genuine reason for action. The argument is based on an account of arbitrariness as a threat to the agent's authorship on action. By focusing on lack of authorship, rather than on failure of commensurability, we gain the adequate perspective to assess the philosophical significance of moral dilemmas, their impact on the agential integrity, and their consequences for ethical theory. Journal Information dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding. Publisher Information Wiley is a global provider of content and content-enabled workflow solutions in areas of scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly research; professional development; and education. Our core businesses produce scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, reference works, books, database services, and advertising; professional books, subscription products, certification and training services and online applications; and education content and services including integrated online teaching and learning resources for undergraduate and graduate students and lifelong learners. Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. has been a valued source of information and understanding for more than 200 years, helping people around the world meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations. Wiley has published the works of more than 450 Nobel laureates in all categories: Literature, Economics, Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Peace. Wiley has partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies and publishes over 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols in STMS subjects. With a growing open access offering, Wiley is committed to the widest possible dissemination of and access to the content we publish and supports all sustainable models of access. Our online platform, Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) is one of the world’s most extensive multidisciplinary collections of online resources, covering life, health, social and physical sciences, and humanities. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
When a person is torn between choosing one of the two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils?The lesser of two evils principle, also referred to as the lesser evil principle and lesser-evilism, is the principle that when faced with selecting from two immoral options, the least immoral one should be chosen.
What is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to dependent on one's culture is referred to as?Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced.
Where does the saying the lesser of two evils come from?The phrase the lesser of two evils is derived from a concept put forth by Thomas à Kempis in the early 1400s in his work Imitation of Christ: “Of two evils, the lesser is always to be chosen.
When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform she is called to make a?In such cases, one is confronted with a moral dilemma . A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired.
|
When a person is torn between choosing one of the two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils what is it called?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 toptenid.com Inc.
