Ethics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:06, 27 December 2023

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch^[1] of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".^[2] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.^[3]

Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.^[4] As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.

Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:^[2]

Metaethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined;
Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.^[2]

Definition

The English word ethics is derived from the Ancient Greek word ēthikós (ἠθικός), meaning "relating to one's character", which itself comes from the root word êthos (ἦθος) meaning "character, moral nature".^[5] This word was transferred into Latin as ethica and then into French as éthique, from which it was transferred into English.

Rushworth Kidder states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'".^[6] Richard William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".^[7] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."^[8] Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, the law, and do not treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.^[9]

The word ethics in English refers to several things.^[10] It can refer to philosophical ethics or moral philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason to answer various kinds of ethical questions. As the English moral philosopher Bernard Williams writes, attempting to explain moral philosophy: "What makes an inquiry a philosophical one is reflective generality and a style of argument that claims to be rationally persuasive."^[11] Williams describes the content of this area of inquiry as addressing the very broad question, "how one should live".^[12] Ethics can also refer to a common human ability to think about ethical problems that is not particular to philosophy. As bioethicist Larry Churchill has written: "Ethics, understood as the capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values, is a generic human capacity."^[13]

Metaethics

Metaethics is the branch of ethics that examines the nature, foundations, and scope of moral judgments, concepts, and values. It is not interested in what actions are right or wrong but in what it means for an action to be right or wrong and whether moral judgments are objective and can be true at all. It further examines the meaning of morality and moral terms.^[14] Metaethics is a metatheory that operates on a higher level of abstraction than normative ethics by investigating its underlying background assumptions. Metaethical theories usually do not directly take substantive positions regarding normative ethical theories but they can influence them nonetheless by questioning the foundational principles on which they rest.^[15]

Metaethics overlaps with various branches of philosophy. On the level of ontology, it is concerned with the metaphysical status of moral values and principles.^[16] In relation to semantics, it asks what the meaning of moral terms is and whether moral statements have a truth value.^[17] The epistemological side of metaethics discusses whether and how people can acquire moral knowledge.^[18] Metaethics further covers psychological and anthropological considerations in regard to how moral judgments motivate people to act and how to explain cross-cultural differences in moral assessments.^[19]

Realism, relativism, and nihilism

A key debate in metaethics concerns the ontological status of morality and encompasses the question of whether ethical values and principles form part of reality. It examines whether moral properties exist as objective features independent of the human mind and culture rather than as subjective constructs or expressions of personal preferences and cultural norms.^[20]

Moral realists accept the claim that there are objective moral facts. This view implies that moral values are mind-independent aspects of reality and that there is an absolute fact about whether a given action is right or wrong. A consequence of this view is that moral requirements have the same ontological status as non-moral facts: it is an objective fact whether there is an obligation to keep a promise just as there is an objective fact whether a thing has a black color.^[21] Moral realism is often associated with the claim that there are universal ethical principles that apply equally to everyone.^[22] It implies that if two people disagree about a moral evaluation then at least one of them is wrong. This observation is sometimes taken as an argument against moral realism since moral disagreement is widespread and concerns most fields.^[23]

Moral relativists reject the idea that morality is an objective feature of reality. They argue instead that moral principles are human inventions. This means that a behavior is not objectively right or wrong but only subjectively right or wrong relative to a certain standpoint. Moral standpoints may differ between persons, cultures, and historical periods.^[24] For example, moral statements like "slavery is wrong" or "suicide is permitted" may be true in one culture and false in another.^[25] This position can be understood in analogy to Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that the magnitude of physical properties like mass, length, and duration depends on the frame of reference of the observer.^[26] Some moral relativists hold that moral systems are constructed to serve certain goals such as social coordination. According to this view, different societies and different social groups within a society construct different moral systems based on their diverging purposes.^[27] A different explanation states that morality arises from moral emotions, which people project onto the external world.^[28]

Moral nihilists deny the existence of moral facts. They are opposed to both objective moral facts defended by moral realism and subjective moral facts defended by moral relativism. They believe that the basic assumptions underlying moral claims are misguided. Some moral nihilists, like Friedrich Nietzsche, conclude from this that anything is allowed. A slightly different view emphasizes that moral nihilism is not itself a moral position about what is allowed and prohibited but the rejection of any moral position.^[29] Moral nihilism agrees with moral relativism that there are different standpoints according to which people judge actions to be right or wrong. However, it disagrees that this practice involves a form of morality and understands it instead as one among many types of human practices.^[30]

Naturalism and non-naturalism

An influential debate among moral realists is between naturalism and non-naturalism. Naturalism states that moral properties are natural properties and are in this respect similar to the natural properties accessible to empirical observation and investigated by the natural sciences, like color and shape.^[31] Some moral naturalists hold that moral properties are a unique and basic type of natural property. Another view states that moral properties are real but not a fundamental part of reality and can be reduced to other natural properties, for example, concerning what causes pleasure and pain.^[32]

Non-naturalism accepts that moral properties form part of reality and argues that moral features are not identical or reducible to natural properties. This view is usually motivated by the idea that moral properties are unique because they express normative features or what should be the case.^[33] Proponents of this position often emphasize this uniqueness by claiming that it is a fallacy to define ethics in terms of natural entities or to infer prescriptive from descriptive statements.^[34]

Cognitivism and non-cognitivism

The metaethical debate between cognitivism and non-cognitivism belongs to the field of semantics and concerns the meaning of moral statements. According to cognitivism, moral statements like "Abortion is morally wrong" and "Going to war is never morally justified" are truth-apt. This means that they all have a truth value: they are either true or false. Cognitivism only claims that moral statements have a truth value but is not interested in which truth value they have. It is often seen as the default position since moral statements resemble other statements, like "Abortion is a medical procedure" or "Going to war is a political decision", which have a truth value.^[35]

The semantic position of cognitivism is closely related to the ontological position of moral realism and philosophers who accept one often accept the other as well. An exception is J. L. Mackie's error theory, which combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts.^[36]

Non-cognitivism is the view that moral statements lack a truth value. According to this view, the statement "Murder is wrong" is neither true nor false. Some non-cognitivists claim that moral statements have no meaning at all. A different interpretation is that they express other types of meaning contents. Emotivism holds that they articulate emotional attitudes. According to this view, the statement "Murder is wrong" expresses that the speaker has negative moral attitudes towards murder or dislikes it. Prescriptivism, by contrast, understands moral statements as commands. According to this view, stating that "Murder is wrong" expresses a command like "Do not commit murder".^[37]

Moral knowledge

The epistemology of ethics studies whether or how one can know moral truths. Foundationalist views state that some moral beliefs are basic and do not require further justification. Ethical intuitionism is one foundationalist view that states that humans have a special cognitive faculty through which they can know right from wrong. Intuitionists often argue that general moral truths, like "lying is wrong", are self-evident and that it is possible to know them a priori without relying on empirical experience. A different foundationalist view relies not on general intuitions but on particular observations. It holds that if people are confronted with a concrete moral situation, they can perceive whether right or wrong conduct was involved.^[38]

In contrast to foundationalists, coherentists hold that there are no basic moral beliefs. They argue that beliefs form a complex network and mutually support and justify one another. According to this view, a moral belief can only amount to knowledge if it coheres with the rest of the beliefs in the network.^[39] Moral skeptics reject the idea that moral knowledge is possible by arguing that people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior. Moral skepticism is often criticized based on the claim that it leads to immoral behavior.^[40]

Moral motivation

On the level of psychology, metaethics is interested in how moral beliefs and experiences affect behavior. According to motivational internalists, there is a direct link between moral judgments and action. This means that every judgment about what is right motivates the person to act accordingly. For example, Socrates defends a strong form of motivational internalism by holding that a person can only perform an evil deed if they are unaware that it is evil. Weaker forms of motivational internalism allow that people can act against moral judgments, for example, because of weakness of the will. Motivational externalists accept that people can judge a behavior to be morally required without feeling a reason to engage in it. This means that moral judgments do not always provide motivational force. The debate between internalism and externalism is relevant for explaining the behavior of psychopaths or sociopaths, who fail either to judge that a behavior is wrong or to translate their judgment into action.^[41] A closely related question is whether moral judgments can provide motivation on their own or need to be accompanied by other mental states, such as a desire to act morally.^[42]

Normative ethics

Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from metaethics because normative ethics examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while metaethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts.^[43] Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the latter is an empirical investigation of people's moral beliefs. To put it another way, descriptive ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive rather than descriptive. However, on certain versions of the metaethical view called moral realism, moral facts are both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time.^[44]

Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes actions right and wrong. These theories offered an overarching moral principle one could appeal to in resolving difficult moral decisions.^{[citation needed]}

At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more complex and were no longer concerned solely with rightness and wrongness, but were interested in many different kinds of moral status. During the middle of the century, the study of normative ethics declined as metaethics grew in prominence. This focus on metaethics was in part caused by an intense linguistic focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism.^{[citation needed]}

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, and it is used to describe the ethics of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle, and ancient Indian philosophers such as Valluvar. Socrates (469–399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge bearing on human life was placed highest, while all other knowledge was secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the results of ignorance. If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his or her actions, he or she would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.^[45]^: 32–33

Aristotle (384–323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "virtuous." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with virtue this person will do good and be content. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by doing wrong, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in accordance with virtue, which is only attainable by the practice of the virtues in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, were only made worthwhile and of benefit when employed in the practice of the virtues. The practice of the virtues is the surest path to happiness. Aristotle asserted that the soul of man had three natures^{[citation needed]}: body (physical/metabolism), animal (emotional/appetite), and rational (mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged through exercise and care; emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges; and mental nature through human reason and developed potential. Rational development was considered the most important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness, and as uniquely human. Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, for the right reason.

Valluvar (before 5th century CE) keeps virtue, or aṟam (dharma) as he calls it, as the cornerstone throughout the writing of the Kural literature.^[46] While religious scriptures generally consider aṟam as divine in nature, Valluvar describes it as a way of life rather than any spiritual observance, a way of harmonious living that leads to universal happiness.^[47] Contrary to what other contemporary works say, Valluvar holds that aṟam is common for all, irrespective of whether the person is a bearer of palanquin or the rider in it. Valluvar considered justice as a facet of aṟam. While ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and their descendants opined that justice cannot be defined and that it was a divine mystery, Valluvar positively suggested that a divine origin is not required to define the concept of justice. In the words of V. R. Nedunchezhiyan, justice according to Valluvar "dwells in the minds of those who have knowledge of the standard of right and wrong; so too deceit dwells in the minds which breed fraud."^[47]

Stoicism

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace. The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is, in essence, offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset, but realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to the existence and enduring in a rational fashion. Death is not feared. People do not "lose" their life, but instead "return", for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a person). Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. Abstinence is highly desirable. Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a victory for which a man could be proud.^[45]^: 38–41

Contemporary virtue ethics

Modern virtue ethics was popularized during the late 20th century in large part due to a revival of Aristotelianism, and as a response to G.E.M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy". Anscombe argues that consequentialist and deontological ethics are only feasible as universal theories if the two schools ground themselves in divine law. As a deeply devoted Christian herself, Anscombe proposed that either those who do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up virtue ethics, which does not necessitate universal laws as agents themselves are investigated for virtue or vice and held up to "universal standards", or that those who wish to be utilitarian or consequentialist ground their theories in religious conviction.^[48] Alasdair MacIntyre, who wrote the book After Virtue, was a key contributor and proponent of modern virtue ethics, although some claim that MacIntyre supports a relativistic account of virtue based on cultural norms, not objective standards.^[48] Martha Nussbaum, a contemporary virtue ethicist, objects to MacIntyre's relativism, among that of others, and responds to relativist objections to form an objective account in her work "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach".^[49] However, Nussbaum's accusation of relativism appears to be a misreading. In Whose Justice, Whose Rationality?, MacIntyre's ambition of taking a rational path beyond relativism was quite clear when he stated "rival claims made by different traditions […] are to be evaluated […] without relativism" (p. 354) because indeed "rational debate between and rational choice among rival traditions is possible" (p. 352). Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century^[50] blended the Eastern virtue ethics and the Western virtue ethics, with some modifications to suit the 21st Century, and formed a part of contemporary virtue ethics.^[50] Mortimer J. Adler described Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics as a "unique book in the Western tradition of moral philosophy, the only ethics that is sound, practical, and undogmatic."^[51]

One major trend in contemporary virtue ethics is the Modern Stoicism movement.

Hedonism

Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people.^[45]^: 37

Cyrenaic hedonism

Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit of immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only good.^[45]^: 37

Epicureanism

Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus "presented a sustained argument that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue."^[52] He rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings. Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus, the summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example, eating one food too often makes a person lose a taste for it. Eating too much food at once leads to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there were an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear, or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state of death in the absence of an afterlife.^[45]^: 37–38

State consequentialism

State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism,^[53] is an ethical theory that evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the basic goods of a state.^[53] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BC, as "a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare".^[54] Unlike utilitarianism, which views pleasure as a moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are … order, material wealth, and increase in population".^[55] During Mozi's era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability.^[56]

Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth … if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically."^[55] The Mohists believed that morality is based on "promoting the benefit of all under heaven and eliminating harm to all under heaven". In contrast to Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not hedonistic or individualistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for the community outweighs the importance of individual pleasure and pain.^[57]

Consequentialism

Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for judgment, see rule consequentialism). Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

The term "consequentialism" was coined by G.E.M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick.^[58] Since then, the term has become common in English-language ethical theory.

The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions.^[59] In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many consequentialist theories address:

What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
How are the consequences judged and who judges them?

One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the many types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase and positive effect, and the best action is one that results in that effect for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and tensions between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated.^{[citation needed]}

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the proper course of action is one that maximizes a positive effect, such as "happiness", "welfare", or the ability to live according to personal preferences.^[60] Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are influential proponents of this school of thought. In A Fragment on Government Bentham says 'it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong' and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he talks of 'the principle of utility' but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle".^[61]^[62]

Utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that the morally correct action is the one that produces the best outcome for all people affected by the action. John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures.^[63] Other noteworthy proponents of utilitarianism are neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, and moral philosopher Peter Singer, author of, amongst other works, Practical Ethics.

The major division within utilitarianism is between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, the principle of utility applies directly to each alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is the one that brings about the best results (or the least bad results). In rule utilitarianism, the principle of utility determines the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people break promises at will and a world in which promises are binding. Right and wrong are the following or breaking of rules that are sanctioned by their utilitarian value.^[64] A proposed "middle ground" between these two types is Two-level utilitarianism, where rules are applied in ordinary circumstances, but with an allowance to choose actions outside of such rules when unusual situations call for it.

Deontology

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill.^[65] This is in contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself. Under deontology, an act may be considered right even if it produces a bad consequence,^[66] if it follows the rule or moral law. According to the deontological view, people have a duty to act in ways that are deemed inherently good ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism).

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.^[67]^[68] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (Pflicht).^[69] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.^[70] Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.^[70]

Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has goodwill when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'.^[70] People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is goodwill, and goodwill is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of "respect" for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love".^[71]

Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.

Kant argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim, e.g. "I will lie", then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it. In his essay, On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns, arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques, Kant states that "Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition (mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius). For a lie always harms another; if not some human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right [Rechtsquelle] ... All practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth ... This is because such exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they bear the name of principles."^[72]

Divine command theory

Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the 'divine command theory', which is actually a cluster of related theories which essentially state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right.^[73] According to Ralph Cudworth, an English philosopher, William of Ockham, René Descartes, and eighteenth-century Calvinists all accepted various versions of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.^[74] The Divine Command Theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not truly speaking "right", even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to covet a neighbor's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.

One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.

Discourse ethics

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has proposed a theory of discourse ethics that he states is a descendant of Kantian ethics.^[75] He proposes that action should be based on communication between those involved, in which their interests and intentions are discussed so they can be understood by all. Rejecting any form of coercion or manipulation, Habermas believes that agreement between the parties is crucial for a moral decision to be reached.^[76] Like Kantian ethics, discourse ethics is a cognitive ethical theory, in that it supposes that truth and falsity can be attributed to ethical propositions. It also formulates a rule by which ethical actions can be determined and proposes that ethical actions should be universalizable, in a similar way to Kant's ethics.^[77]

Habermas argues that his ethical theory is an improvement on Kant's ethics.^[77] He rejects the dualistic framework of Kant's ethics. Kant distinguished between the phenomena world, which can be sensed and experienced by humans, and the noumena, or spiritual world, which is inaccessible to humans. This dichotomy was necessary for Kant because it could explain the autonomy of a human agent: although a human is bound in the phenomenal world, their actions are free in the noumenal world. For Habermas, morality arises from discourse, which is made necessary by their rationality and needs, rather than their freedom.^[78]

Pragmatic ethics

Associated with the pragmatists Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and especially John Dewey, pragmatic ethics holds that moral correctness evolves similarly to scientific knowledge: socially over the course of many lifetimes. Thus, we should prioritize social reform over attempts to account for consequences, individual virtue or duty (although these may be worthwhile attempts, if social reform is provided for).^[79]

Ethics of care

Care ethics contrasts with more well-known ethical models, such as consequentialist theories (e.g. utilitarianism) and deontological theories (e.g., Kantian ethics) in that it seeks to incorporate traditionally feminized virtues and values that—proponents of care ethics contend—are absent in such traditional models of ethics. These values include the importance of empathetic relationships and compassion.

Care-focused feminism is a branch of feminist thought, informed primarily by ethics of care as developed by Carol Gilligan^[80] and Nel Noddings.^[81] This body of theory is critical of how caring is socially assigned to women, and consequently devalued. They write, "Care-focused feminists regard women's capacity for care as a human strength," that should be taught to and expected of men as well as women. Noddings proposes that ethical caring has the potential to be a more concrete evaluative model of moral dilemma than an ethic of justice.^[82] Noddings’ care-focused feminism requires practical application of relational ethics, predicated on an ethic of care.^[83]

Feminist matrixial ethics

The 'metafeminist' theory of the matrixial gaze and the matrixial^[84]^[85] time-space, coined and developed Bracha L. Ettinger since 1985,^[86]^[87]^[88]^[89] articulates a revolutionary philosophical approach that, in "daring to approach", to use Griselda Pollock's description of Ettinger's ethical turn,^[90]^[91] "the prenatal with the pre-maternal encounter", violence toward women at war, and the Shoah, has philosophically established the rights of each female subject over her own reproductive body, and offered a language to relate to human experiences which escape the phallic domain.^[92]^[93] The matrixial sphere is a psychic and symbolic dimension that the 'phallic' language and regulations cannot control. In Ettinger's model, the relations between self and other are of neither assimilation nor rejection but 'coemergence'. In her conversation with Emmanuel Levinas, 1991, Ettinger prooses that the source of human Ethics is feminine-maternal and feminine-pre-maternal matrixial encounter-event. Sexuality and maternality coexist and are not in contradiction (the contradiction established by Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan), and the feminine is not an absolute alterity (the alterity established by Jacques Lacan and Emmanuel Levinas). With the 'originary response-ability', 'wit(h)nessing', 'borderlinking', 'communicaring', 'com-passion', 'seduction into life'^[94]^[95] and other processes invested by affects that occur in the Ettingerian matrixial time-space, the feminine is presented as the source of humanized Ethics in all genders. Compassion and Seduction into life occurs earlier than the primary seduction which passes through enigmatic signals from the maternal sexuality according to Jean Laplanche, since it is active in 'coemergence' in 'withnessing' for any born subject, earlier to its birth. Ettinger suggests to Emanuel Levinas in their conversations in 1991, that the feminine understood via the matrixial perspective is the heart and the source of Ethics.^[96]^[97] At the beginning of life, an originary 'fascinance' felt by the infant^[98] is related to the passage from response-ability to responsibility, from com-passion to compassion, and from wit(h)nessing to witnessing operated and transmitted by the m/Other. The 'differentiation in jointness' that is at the heart of the matrixial borderspace has deep implications in the relational field^[99] and for the ethics of care.^[100] The matrixial theory that proposes new ways to rethink sexual difference through the fluidity of boundaries informs aesthetics and ethics of compassion, carrying and non-abandonment in 'subjectivity as encounter-event'.^[101]^[102] It has become significant in Psychoanalysis and in transgender studies.^[103]

Role ethics

Role ethics is an ethical theory based on family roles.^[104] Unlike virtue ethics, role ethics is not individualistic. Morality is derived from a person's relationship with their community.^[105] Confucian ethics is an example of role ethics^[104] though this is not straightforwardly uncontested.^[106] Confucian roles center around the concept of filial piety or xiao, a respect for family members.^[107] According to Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, "Confucian normativity is defined by living one's family roles to maximum effect." Morality is determined through a person's fulfillment of a role, such as that of a parent or a child. Confucian roles are not rational, and originate through the xin, or human emotions.^[105]

Anarchist ethics

Anarchist ethics is an ethical theory based on the studies of anarchist thinkers. The biggest contributor to anarchist ethics is Peter Kropotkin.

Starting from the premise that the goal of ethical philosophy should be to help humans adapt and thrive in evolutionary terms, Kropotkin's ethical framework uses biology and anthropology as a basis – in order to scientifically establish what will best enable a given social order to thrive biologically and socially – and advocates certain behavioural practices to enhance humanity's capacity for freedom and well-being, namely practices which emphasise solidarity, equality, and justice.

Kropotkin argues that ethics itself is evolutionary, and is inherited as a sort of a social instinct through cultural history, and by so, he rejects any religious and transcendental explanation of morality. The origin of ethical feeling in both animals and humans can be found, he claims, in the natural fact of "sociality" (mutualistic symbiosis), which humans can then combine with the instinct for justice (i.e. equality) and then with the practice of reason to construct a non-supernatural and anarchistic system of ethics.^[108] Kropotkin suggests that the principle of equality at the core of anarchism is the same as the Golden rule:

This principle of treating others as one wishes to be treated oneself, what is it but the very same principle as equality, the fundamental principle of anarchism? And how can any one manage to believe himself an anarchist unless he practices it? We do not wish to be ruled. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves wish to rule nobody? We do not wish to be deceived, we wish always to be told nothing but the truth. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves do not wish to deceive anybody, that we promise to always tell the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth? We do not wish to have the fruits of our labor stolen from us. And by that very fact, do we not declare that we respect the fruits of others' labor? By what right indeed can we demand that we should be treated in one fashion, reserving it to ourselves to treat others in a fashion entirely different? Our sense of equality revolts at such an idea.^[109]

Postmodern ethics

Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland Barthes challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of the notion of the 'individual' itself. This was on the basis that personal identity was, in the most part, a social construction. As critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-structuralism sought to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality. Jacques Derrida argued that access to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and sought to demonstrate via recourse to the linguistic realm that "there is no outside-text/non-text" ("il n'y a pas de hors-texte" is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside the text"); at the same time, Jean Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality (and eventually the absence of reality itself), particularly in the consumer world.

Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that ethics must study the complex and relational conditions of actions. A simple alignment of ideas of right and particular acts is not possible. There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be taken into account or often even recognized. Such theorists find narrative (or, following Nietzsche and Foucault, genealogy) to be a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is always about particular lived experiences in all their complexity rather than the assignment of an idea or norm to separate and individual actions.

Zygmunt Bauman says postmodernity is best described as modernity without illusion, the illusion being the belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle. Postmodernity can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of humanity as unchangeable. In this postmodern world, the means to act collectively and globally to solve large-scale problems have been all but discredited, dismantled or lost. Problems can be handled only locally and each on its own. All problem-handling means building a mini-order at the expense of order elsewhere, and at the cost of rising global disorder as well as depleting the shrinking supplies of resources which make ordering possible. He considers Emmanuel Levinas's ethics as postmodern. Unlike the modern ethical philosophy which leaves the Other on the outside of the self as an ambivalent presence, Levinas's philosophy readmits her as a neighbor and as a crucial character in the process through which the moral self comes into its own.^[110]

David Couzens Hoy states that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and Derrida's meditations on the relevance of death to ethics are signs of the "ethical turn" in Continental philosophy that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Hoy describes post-critique ethics as the "obligations that present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but are neither forced on one or are enforceable".^[111]

Hoy's post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance. Examples of this would be an individual's resistance to consumerism in a retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or an individual's resistance to a terminal illness. Hoy describes Levinas's account as "not the attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of the population to exert their political power; the ethical resistance is instead the resistance of the powerless".^[112]

Hoy concludes that

The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable precisely because of the other's lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely undertaken and would not be in the realm of the ethical.^[113]

Applied ethics

Applied ethics, also known as practical ethics,^[114] is the branch of ethics and applied philosophy that examines concrete moral problems encountered in real-life situations. Unlike normative ethics, it is not concerned with discovering or justifying universal ethical principles. Instead, it studies how those principles can be applied to specific domains of practical life, what consequences they have in these fields, and whether other considerations are relevant.^[115]

One of the main challenges of applied ethics is to breach the gap between abstract universal theories and their application to concrete situations. For example, an in-depth understanding of Kantianism or utilitarianism is usually not sufficient to decide how to analyze the moral implications of a medical procedure. One reason is that it may not be clear how the procedure affects the Kantian requirement of respecting everyone's personhood and what the consequences of the procedure are in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number.^[116] This difficulty is particularly relevant to applied ethicists who employ a top-down methodology by starting from universal ethical principles and applying them to particular cases within a specific domain.^[117] A different approach is to use a bottom-up methodology, which relies on many observations of particular cases to arrive at an understanding of the moral principles relevant to this particular domain.^[118] In either case, inquiry into applied ethics is often triggered by ethical dilemmas to solve cases in which a person is subject to conflicting moral requirements.^[119]

Applied ethics covers issues pertaining to both the private sphere, like right conduct in the family and close relationships, and the public sphere, like moral problems posed by new technologies and international duties toward future generations.^[120] Major branches include bioethics, business ethics, and professional ethics. There are many other branches and their domains of inquiry often overlap.^[121]

Bioethics

Bioethics is a wide field that covers moral problems associated with living organisms and biological disciplines.^[122] A key problem in bioethics concerns the moral status of entities and to what extent this status depends on features such as consciousness, being able to feel pleasure and pain, rationality, and personhood. These differences concern, for example, how to treat non-living entities like rocks and non-sentient entities like plants in contrast to animals and whether humans have a different moral status than other animals.^[123] According to anthropocentrism, only humans have a basic moral status. This implies that all other entities only have a derivative moral status to the extent that they affect human life. Sentientism, by contrast, extends an inherent moral status to all sentient beings. Further positions include biocentrism, which also covers non-sentient lifeforms, and ecocentrism, which states that all of nature has a basic moral status.^[124]

Bioethics is relevant to various aspects of life and to many professions. It covers a wide range of moral problems associated with topics like abortion, cloning, stem cell research, euthanasia, suicide, animal testing, intensive animal farming, nuclear waste, and air pollution.^[125]

Bioethics can be divided into medical ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics based on whether the ethical problems relate to humans, other animals, or nature in general.^[126] Medical ethics is the oldest branch of bioethics and has its origins in the Hippocratic Oath, which establishes ethical guidelines for medical practitioners like a prohibition to harm the patient.^[127] A central topic in medical ethics concerns issues associated with the beginning and the end of life. One debate focuses on the question of whether a fetus is a full-fledged person with all the rights associated with this status. For example, some proponents of this view argue that abortion is a form of murder.^[128] In relation to the end of life, there are ethical dilemmas concerning whether a person has a right to end their own life in cases of terminal illness and whether a medical practitioner may assist them in doing so.^[129] Other topics in medical ethics include medical confidentiality, informed consent, research on human beings, organ transplantation, and access to healthcare.^[130]

Animal ethics examines how humans should treat other animals. An influential consideration in this field emphasizes the importance of animal welfare while arguing that humans should avoid or minimize the harm done to animals. There is wide agreement that it is wrong to torture animals for fun. The situation is more complicated in cases where harm is inflicted on animals as a side effect of the pursuit of human interests. This happens, for example, during factory farming, when using animals as food, and for research experiments on animals.^[131] A key topic in animal ethics is the formulation of animal rights. Animal rights theorists assert that animals have a certain moral status and that humans have an obligation to respect this status when interacting with them.^[132] Examples of suggested animal rights include the right to life, the right to be free from unnecessary suffering, and the right to natural behavior in a suitable environment.^[133]

Environmental ethics deals with moral problems relating to the natural environment including animals, plants, natural resources, and ecosystems. In its widest sense, it also covers the whole biosphere and the cosmos.^[134] In the domain of agriculture, this concerns questions like under what circumstances it is acceptable to clear the vegetation of an area to use it for farming and the implications of using genetically modified crops.^[135] On a wider scale, environmental ethics addresses the problem of global warming and how people are responsible for this both on an individual and a collective level. Environmental ethicists often promote sustainable practices and policies directed at protecting and conserving ecosystems and biodiversity.^[136]

Business and professional ethics

Business ethics examines the moral implications of business conduct and investigates how ethical principles apply to corporations and organizations.^[137] A key topic is corporate social responsibility, which is the responsibility of corporations to act in a manner that benefits society at large. Corporate social responsibility is a complex issue since many stakeholders are directly and indirectly involved in corporate decisions, such as the CEO, the board of directors, and the shareholders. A closely related topic concerns the question of whether corporations themselves, and not just their stakeholders, have moral agency.^[138] Business ethics further examines the role of truthfulness, honesty, and fairness in business practices as well as the moral implications of bribery, conflict of interest, protection of investors and consumers, worker's rights, ethical leadership, and corporate philanthropy.^[139]

Professional ethics is a closely related field that studies ethical principles applying to members of a specific profession, like engineers, medical doctors, lawyers, and teachers. It is a diverse field since different professions often have different responsibilities.^[140] Principles applying to many professions include that the professional has the required expertise for the intended work and that they have personal integrity and are trustworthy. Further principles are to serve the interest of their target group, follow client confidentiality, and respect and uphold the client's rights, such as informed consent.^[141] More precise requirements often vary between professions. A cornerstone of engineering ethics is to protect the public's safety, health, and wellbeing.^[142] Legal ethics emphasizes the importance of respect for justice, personal integrity, and confidentiality.^[143] Key factors in journalism ethics include accuracy, truthfulness, independence, and impartiality as well as proper attribution to avoid plagiarism.^[144]

Others

Many other fields of applied ethics are discussed in the academic literature. Communication ethics covers moral principles in relation to communicative conduct. Two key issues in it are freedom of speech and speech responsibility. Freedom of speech concerns the ability to articulate one's opinions and ideas without the threats of punishment and censorship. Speech responsibility is about being accountable for the consequences of communicative action and inaction.^[145] A closely related field is information ethics, which focuses on the moral implications of creating, controlling, disseminating, and using information.^[146]

The ethics of technology has implications for both communication ethics and information ethics in regard to communication and information technologies. In its widest sense, it examines the moral issues associated with any artifacts created and used for instrumental means, from simple artifacts like spears to high-tech computers and nanotechnology.^[147] Central topics in the ethics of technology include the risks associated with creating new technologies, their responsible use, and questions surrounding the issue of human enhancement through technological means, such as prosthetic limbs, performance-enhancing drugs, and genetic enhancement.^[148] Important subfields include computer ethics, ethics of artificial intelligence, machine ethics, ethics of nanotechnology, and nuclear ethics.^[149]

The ethics of war investigates moral problems in relation to war and violent conflicts. According to just war theory, waging war is morally justified if it fulfills certain conditions. They are commonly divided into requirements concerning the cause to initiate violent activities, such as self-defense, and the way those violent activities are conducted, such as avoiding excessive harm to civilians in the pursuit of legitimate military targets.^[150] Military ethics is a closely related field that is interested in the conduct of military personnel. It governs questions of the circumstances under which they are permitted to kill enemies, destroy infrastructure, and put the lives of their own troops at risk.^[151] Additional topics are recruitment, training, and discharge of military personnel as well as the procurement of military equipment.^[152]

Further fields of applied ethics include political ethics, which examines the moral dimensions of political decisions,^[153] educational ethics, which covers ethical issues related to proper teaching practices,^[154] and sexual ethics, which addresses the moral implications of sexual behavior.^[155]

Moral psychology

Moral psychology is a field of study that began as an issue in philosophy and that is now properly considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.^[156] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and psychology (and philosophy of mind).^[157] Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.^[158]

Evolutionary ethics

Evolutionary ethics concerns approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences and choices.^[159]

Descriptive ethics

Descriptive ethics is on the less philosophical end of the spectrum since it seeks to gather particular information about how people live and draw general conclusions based on observed patterns. Abstract and theoretical questions that are more clearly philosophical—such as, "Is ethical knowledge possible?"—are not central to descriptive ethics. Descriptive ethics offers a value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science rather than a humanities discipline. Its examination of ethics does not start with a preconceived theory but rather investigates observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on descriptive ethics and choices made and unchallenged by a society or culture to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to situational ethics and situated ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration as more fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribe, theories of value or of conduct. The study of descriptive ethics may include examinations of the following:

Ethical codes applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics—and a personal moral core developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices.
Informal theories of etiquette that tend to be less rigorous and more situational. Some consider etiquette a simple negative ethics, i.e., where can one evade an uncomfortable truth without doing wrong? One notable advocate of this view is Judith Martin ("Miss Manners"). According to this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense social decisions.
Practices in arbitration and law, e.g., the claim that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right versus right", i.e., putting priorities on two things that are both right, but that must be traded off carefully in each situation.
Observed choices made by ordinary people, without expert aid or advice, who vote, buy, and decide what is worth valuing. This is a major concern within disciplines such as political science and economics.^[160]

History

The history of ethics studies how moral philosophy has developed and evolved in the course of history.^[161] It has its origin in the ancient civilizations. In ancient Egypt, the concept of Maat was used as an ethical principle to guide behavior and maintain order by emphasizing the importance of truth, balance, and harmony.^[162] In ancient India, the Vedas and Upanishads were written as the foundational texts of Hindu philosophy and discussed the role of duty and the consequences of one's actions.^[163] Buddhist ethics also originated in ancient India and advocated compassion, non-violence, and the pursuit of enlightenment.^[164] Ancient China saw the emergence of Confucianism, which focuses on moral conduct and self-cultivation by acting in accordance with virtues, and Daoism, which teaches that human behavior should be in harmony with the natural order of the universe.^[165]

In ancient Greece, Socrates emphasized the importance of inquiry into what a good life is by critically questioning established ideas and exploring concepts like virtue, justice, courage, and wisdom.^[166] According to Plato, to lead a good life means that the different parts of the soul are in harmony with each other.^[167] For Aristotle, a good life is associated with being happy by cultivating virtues and flourishing.^[168] The close relation between right action and happiness was also explored by Hellenistic schools of Epicureanism, which recommended a simple lifestyle without indulging in sensory pleasures, and Stoicism, which advocated living in tune with reason and virtue while practicing self-mastery and becoming immune to disturbing emotions.^[169]

Ethical thought in the medieval period was strongly influenced by religious teachings. Christian philosophers interpreted moral principles as divine commands originating from God.^[170] Thomas Aquinas developed natural law ethics by claiming that ethical behavior consists in following the laws and order of nature, which he believed were created by God.^[171] In the Islamic world, philosophers like Al-Farabi and Avicenna synthesized ancient Greek philosophy with the ethical teachings of Islam while emphasizing the harmony between reason and faith.^[172] In medieval India, philosophers like Adi Shankara and Ramanuja saw the practice of spirituality to attain liberation as the highest goal of human behavior.^[173]

Moral philosophy in the modern period was characterized by a shift toward a secular approach to ethics. Thomas Hobbes identified self-interest as the primary drive of humans. He concluded that it would lead to "a war of every man against every man" unless a social contract is established to avoid this outcome.^[174] David Hume thought that only moral sentiments, like empathy, can motivate ethical actions while he saw reason not as a motivating factor but only as what anticipates the consequences of possible actions.^[175] Immanuel Kant, by contrast, saw reason as the source of morality. He formulated a deontological theory, according to which the ethical value of actions depends on their conformity with moral laws independent of their outcome. These laws take the form of categorical imperatives, which are universal requirements that apply to every situation.^[176] Another influential development in this period was the formulation of utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to the utilitarian doctrine, actions should promote happiness while reducing suffering and the right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.^[177]

An important development in 20th-century analytic philosophy was the emergence of metaethics.^[178] Significant early contributions to this field were made by G. E. Moore, who argued that moral values are essentially different from other properties found in the natural world.^[179] R. M. Hare followed this idea in formulating his prescriptivism, which states that moral statements are commands that, unlike regular judgments, are neither true nor false.^[180] An influential argument for moral realism was made by Derek Parfit, who argued that morality concerns objective features of reality that give people reasons to act in one way or another.^[181] Another development in this period was the revival of ancient virtue ethics by philosophers like Philippa Foot.^[182] In the field of political philosophy, John Rawls relied on Kantian ethics to analyze social justice as a form of fairness.^[183] In continental philosophy, phenomenologists such as Max Scheler and Nicolai Hartmann built ethical systems based on the claim that values have objective reality that can be investigated using the phenomenological method.^[184] Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, by contrast, held that values are created by humans and explored the consequences of this view in relation to individual freedom, responsibility, and authenticity.^[185] This period also saw the emergence of feminist ethics, which questions traditional ethical assumptions associated with a male perspective and puts alternative concepts, like care, at the center.^[186]

References

Citations

^ Verst, Ludger; Kampmann, Susanne; Eilers, Franz-Josef (July 27, 2015). Die Literaturrundschau. Communicatio Socialis. OCLC 914511982.
^ ^a ^b ^c Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ""Ethics"". Archived from the original on January 18, 2018. Retrieved January 7, 2012.
^ Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Entry on Axiology. Archived March 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
^ Martinez, Veronica Root (October 23, 2019). "More Meaningful Ethics". University of Chicago Law Review. Chicago, IL. SSRN 3474344. Archived from the original on July 30, 2022. Retrieved November 18, 2021.
^ An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. New York, Harper & Brothers. 1889. p. 349.
^ Kidder, Rushworth (2003). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: HarperCollins. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-688-17590-0.
^ Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. p. NP. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.
^ John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995.
^ Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. p. np. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.
^ "Definition of ethic by Merriam Webster". Merriam Webster. Archived from the original on October 24, 2016. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
^ Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p. 2.
^ Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p. 1.
^ "Are We Professionals? A Critical Look at the Social Role of Bioethicists". Daedalus. 1999. pp. 253–274.
^
- Harrison 2005, pp. 588–589
- DeLapp, Lead Section
- Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section
^
- DeLapp, Lead Section, § 2. The Normative Relevance of Metaethics
- Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 1. General Observations
^
- DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4. Ontological Issues in Metaethics
- Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 3. Naturalism and Non-naturalism
^
- DeLapp, Lead Section, § 3. Semantic Issues in Metaethics
- Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 4. Is/Ought and the Open Question Argument
^
- DeLapp, Lead Section, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics
- Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 5. Moral Epistemology
^
- DeLapp, Lead Section, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics, 7. Anthropological Considerations
- Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 6. Morals, Motives, and Reasons, § 7. Freedom and Responsibility
^
- DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4a. Moral Realisms
- Sayre-McCord 2023a, Lead Section
^
- DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4a. Moral Realisms
- Sayre-McCord 2023a, Lead Section
^ DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
^
- Sayre-McCord 2023a, § 1. Moral Disagreement
- DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
^
- DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms
- Gowans 2021, Lead Section, § 2. Forms and Arguments
- Westacott, Lead Section
- Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241
^
- Westacott, § 2g. Moral Relativism
- Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical Moral Relativism
^ Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241
^
- DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms
- Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical Moral Relativism
^ Dreier 2007, p. 241
^
- Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241
- Krellenstein 2017, pp. 75–90
^ Dreier 2007, pp. 241–242
^
- Lutz 2023, Lead Section, § 1. What is Moral Naturalism?
- DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
^
- Lutz 2023, § 1. What is Moral Naturalism?, § 2. Descriptivism and Reductivism
- DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
^
- FitzPatrick 2011, pp. 7–35, Ethical Non-Naturalism and Normative Properties
- Ridge 2019, Lead Section
^
- Ridge 2019, § 1. The Naturalistic Fallacy
- Shafer-Landau 2020, p. 148
^
- DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism
- Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
^ Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
^
- Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
- DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism
- Moreland & Craig 2017, p. 417
^
- DeLapp, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics
- Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology
^
- DeLapp, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics
- Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology
^
- Sinnott-Armstrong 2019, Lead Section, § 1. Varieties of Moral Skepticism, § 2. A Presumption against Moral Skepticism?
- Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology
^
- DeLapp, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics
- Sayre-McCord 2023, § 6. Morals, Motives, and Reasons
- Rosati 2016, Lead Section, § 3. Moral Judgment and Motivation
^ Rosati 2016, Lead Section, § 3. Moral Judgment and Motivation
^ "What is ethics?". BBC. Archived from the original on October 28, 2013. Retrieved July 22, 2014.
^ Cavalier, Robert. "Meta-ethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics". Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Archived from the original on November 12, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e William S. Sahakian; Mabel Lewis Sahakian (1966). Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
^ Velusamy, N.; Faraday, Moses Michael, eds. (2017). Why Should Thirukkural Be Declared the National Book of India?. Unique Media Integrators. p. 55. ISBN 978-93-85471-70-4.
^ ^a ^b N. Sanjeevi (1973). First All India Tirukkural Seminar Papers (2nd ed.). Chennai: University of Madras. p. xxiii–xxvii.
^ ^a ^b Professor Michiel S.S. De De Vries; Professor Pan Suk Kim (2011). Value and Virtue in Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-230-35709-9.
^ Nussbaum, Martha (1987). Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach.
^ ^a ^b John Newton, Ph.D., Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century (2000). ISBN 0-9673705-7-4.
^ Adler 1985, p. 194.
^ Ancient Ethical Theory Archived May 15, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^ ^a ^b Ivanhoe, P. J.; Van Norden, Bryan William (2005). Readings in classical Chinese philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-87220-780-6. he advocated a form of state consequentialism, which sought to maximize three basic goods: the wealth, order, and population of the state
^ Fraser, Chris, "Mohism Archived March 21, 2019, at the Wayback Machine", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta.
^ ^a ^b Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1999). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press. p. 761. ISBN 978-0-521-47030-8.
^ Van Norden, Bryan W. (2011). Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-60384-468-0.
^ Jay L. Garfield; William Edelglass (2011). The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-19-532899-8. Archived from the original on April 25, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016. The goods that serve as criteria of morality are collective or public, in contrast, for instance, to individual happiness or well-being
^ Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy". Philosophy. 33 (124): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943. S2CID 197875941. Archived from the original on January 31, 2010. Retrieved December 14, 2009.
^ Mackie, J. L. (1990) [1977]. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-013558-9.
^ Baqgini, Julian; Fosl, Peter S. (2007). The Ethics Toolkit: A Compendium of Ethical Concepts and Methods. Malden: Blackwell. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-1-4051-3230-5.
^ Bentham, Jeremy (2001). The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media Corporation. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4021-6393-7.
^ "Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism (Project Gutenberg online edition)". Archived from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved June 28, 2012.
^ Mill, John Stuart (1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875163-2. Archived from the original on June 19, 2012. Retrieved June 28, 2012.
^ "Utilitarian Theories". Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University. 1996. Archived from the original on May 20, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
^ "Deontological Ethics". Stanford.edu. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2021. Archived from the original on April 25, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2012.
^ Olson, Robert G. 1967. 'Deontological Ethics'. In Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan: 343.
^ Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press: 19.
^ Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press: 160.
^ Kant, Immanuel (1889). The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Longmans, Green & Co. Archived from the original on October 14, 2016. Preface and Introduction to Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre Archived March 22, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, 1797. Abbott's deontology translates Kant's Pflichtenlehre.
^ ^a ^b ^c Kant, Immanuel. 1785. 'First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical', Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
^ Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (ed.). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project Gutenberg. p. 23.
^ "Über ein vermeintes Recht aus Menschenliebe zu lügen", Berlinische Blätter 1 (1797), 301–314; edited in: Werke in zwölf Bänden, vol. 8, Frankfurt am Main (1977), zeno.org/nid/20009192123 Archived July 30, 2022, at the Wayback Machine.
^ Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory". Noûs, Vol. 17, No. 3: 387–407.
^ Cudworth, Ralph. 1731. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality. Reprinted in 1996. Sarah Hutton (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
^ Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 53
^ Collin 2007, p. 78
^ ^a ^b Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 54
^ Payrow Shabani 2003, pp. 55–56
^ Lafollette, Hugh, ed. (2000). The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Blackwell Philosophy Guides (1 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20119-9.
^ Cite error: The named reference GILLIGAN2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Tong, Rosemarie; Williams, Nancy (May 4, 2009). "Feminist Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab. Archived from the original on September 11, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2017.
^ Noddings, Nel: Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, pp. 3–4. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.
^ Noddings, Nel: Women and Evil, p. 222. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989.
^ Ettinger, Bracha L., "Matrix and Metramorphosis." In: Differences. Vol. 4, nº 3, 1992.
^ Ettinger, Bracha L., Proto-ethica Matricial, Gedisa, 2019.
^ Bracha L. Ettinger, The Matrixial Gaze. Fine Art, Leeds University, 1995.
^ Bracha L. Ettinger, "Trans-Subjective Transferential Borderspace." In: Mazin, V., Tourkina, O., and Seppala, M., eds. Doctor and Patient. Memory and Amnesia. Ylojarvi: Pori Art Museum Publications, 1997. Reprinted: Brian Massumi, ed. A Shock to Thought. Routledge, 2002
^ Bracha L. Ettinger, "Wit(h)nessing Trauma and the Gaze." In: Vandenbroeck, P. et al eds. The Fascinating Face of Flanders. Through Art and Society (English, Portuguese, Flemish). Stad Antwerpen, 1998
^ Bracha L. Ettinger, Matrixial Subjectivity, Aesthetics, Ethics. Vol 1: 1990–2000. Ed. by Griselda Pollock. Pelgrave Macmillan 2020
^ Pollock, Griselda. "Aesthetic Wit(h)nessing in the Era of Trauma." In: EurAmerica vol 40 n. 4, December 2010 <http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/eu_file/12929220264.pdf Archived February 19, 2022, at the Wayback Machine>
^ Pollock, Griselda. Generations and Geographies. Routledge, 1996.
^ "Bracha L Ettinger Metafeminist and Feminist Notes. Oxytocin Mothering the World, London March 2019". YouTube. Archived from the original on February 20, 2022. Retrieved February 24, 2022.
^ Ettinger, Bracha L., "Beyond the Death-drive, Beyond the Life-drive – Being – toward-Birthing with Being-toward-Birth. Copoiesis and the Matrixial Eros—Metafeminist Notes." in: Aberrant Nuptials. Edited by P. de Assis & P. Giudici. Leuven Univ. Press. 2019.
^ "Communicaring". In: PostGender: Sexuality and Performativeivity in Japanese Culture. Ed. Ayelet Zohar. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010
^ Mandeville, Kat, Seduction into Life. NY: Antropos, 2016.
^ Emmanuel Levinas and Bracha L. Ettinger, Time is the Breath of the Spirit. Oxford: Museum of Modern Art, 1993.
^ Emmanuel Levinas and Bracha L. Ettinger, Que dirait Eurydice?"/"What Would Eurydice Say? Paris: BLE Atelier, 1997. Reprinted in Athena: Philosophical Studies. Vol. 2, 2006. http://lkti.lt/athena/pdf/2/100-145.pdf Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
^ Bracha L. Ettinger, "Fascinance. The Woman-to-woman (Girl-to-m/Other) Matrixial Feminine Difference." In: Pollock, Griselda, ed. Psychoanalysis and the Image. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
^ Bracha L. Ettinger, "Diotima and the Matrixial Transference: Psychoanalytical Encounter-Event as Pregnancy in Beauty." In: der Merwe, V., Chris N., Viljoen, H., eds. Across the Threshold. Peter Lang, 2007.
^ Birgit M. Kaiser, Kathrin Thiele, "If You Do Well, Carry! The Difference of the Humane: An Interview with Bracha L. Ettinger". philoSOPHIA, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2018, pp. 101–125 (Article). https://doi.org/10.1353/phi.2018.0005
^ Smith, Marielle, "Subjectivity as Encounter: Feminine Ethics in the Work of Bracha Lichtenberg-Ettinger and Anne Enright", Hypatia Vol. 28, No. 3 (Summer 2013)
^ Angie Voela and Cigdem Esin, "Movement, Embrace: Adriana Cavarero with Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger (and the Death Drive)", Hypatia 36 (1):101–119 (2021)
^ Cavanagh, Sheila, "Bracha L. Ettinger, Jacques Lacan and Tiresias: The Other Sexual Difference". The Site for Contemporary Psychoanalysis, n. 18 2018. Archived February 19, 2022, at the Wayback Machine
^ ^a ^b Roger T. Ames (2011). Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary. University of Hawaiʻi Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-3576-7.
^ ^a ^b Chris Fraser; Dan Robins; Timothy O'Leary (2011). Ethics in Early China: An Anthology. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 17–35. ISBN 978-988-8028-93-1. Archived from the original on May 12, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016.
^ Sim, May, 2015, "Why Confucius' Ethics is a Virtue Ethics", in Besser-Jones and Slote (2015), pp. 63–76
^ Wonsuk Chang; Leah Kalmanson (2010). Confucianism in Context: Classic Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, East Asia and Beyond. SUNY Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-4384-3191-8. Archived from the original on May 6, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016.
^ ""Ethics: Origin and Development" by Pëtr Kropotkin" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved August 11, 2014.
^ ""Anarchist morality", chapter VI, Pëtr Kropotkin". Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved November 4, 2015.
^ Bauman, Zygmunt (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 84, 245.
^ Hoy 2004, p. 103.
^ Hoy 2004, p. 8.
^ Hoy 2004, p. 184.
^
- Darwall 2003, p. 17
- Chakraborti 2023, p. 619–620
^
- Almond 1998, Lead Section, § 1. Definitions
- Dittmer, Lead Section, § 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Normative Ethics and Metaethics
- Petersen & Ryberg 2022
- Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175
^ Winkler 1998, pp. 175–176
^ Beaucham 2003, pp. 7–9
^
- Beaucham 2003, pp. 7–9
- Winkler 1998, p. 176–117
- Almond 1998, § 2. Theory and practice
^ Almond 1998, § 2. Theory and practice
^ Almond 1998, § 1. Definitions
^
- Ryberg 2010, p. 3
- Meynell & Paron 2023, p. 11
- Chakraborti 2023, p. 620
- Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175
^
- Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
- Gordon, Lead Section
- Gillon 1998, pp. 267–268
^
- Gordon, Lead Section, § 4. The Idea of Moral Status in Bioethics
- Dittmer, § 4a. Theories of Moral Standing and Personhood
^
- Holmes 2018, pp. 288–289
- Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics
^
- Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
- Gordon, Lead Section, § 1. Preliminary Distinctions
^ Gordon, Lead Section, § 3a. Introduction
^ Gordon, Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics
^
- Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
- Gordon, Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics
^
- Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
- Delden 1998, pp. 200–201
^ Gordon, Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics
^
- Wilson, Lead Section
- Gordon, Lead Section, § 3c. Animal Ethics
- Holmes 2018, pp. 317–319
^ Holmes 2018, pp. 333–334
^
- Francione 2004, pp. 115–116
- Yount 2007, p. 26
^
- Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics
- Sandler 1998, pp. 105–106
- Brennan & Lo 2022, Lead Section
^
- Brennan & Lo 2022, § 1. Introduction: The Challenge of Environmental Ethics
- Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics
^
- Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics
- Cochrane, § 2. Radical Ecology
- Smith 2018, p. 36
^
- Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366
- Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics
^
- Dueñas et al. 2018, pp. xv–xvi
- Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics
- Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366
^
- Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366
- Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics
^
- Airaksinen 1998
- Dittmer, § 5. Professional Ethics
^ Airaksinen 1998, pp. 617–620
^ Catalano 2022, p. 17
^ Parker & Evans 2007, pp. 22–23
^
- Medvecky & Leach 2019, p. 35
- Mentan 2022, p. 280
- Patching & Hirst 2013, p. 69
^
- Kvalnes 2023, pp. 101, 105
- Christians 2005
^
- ten Have & Patrão Neves 2021, p. 633
- Elrod & Smith 2005
^ Braunack-Mayer, Street & Palmer 1998, pp. 321–322
^
- Braunack-Mayer, Street & Palmer 1998, pp. 323–326
- Robson & Tsou 2023, pp. 16–17
^
- Tzafestas 2015, p. 2
- Mitcham 2022, p. 101
^
- Frowe 2021, Lead Section
- Lazar 2020, Lead Section, § 3. Jus ad Bellum, § 4. Jus in Bello
- Sorabji & Rodin 2007, pp. 2–3
^
- Wolfendale 2007, pp. 47–78
- Baumann 2007, pp. 34–35
^ Fotion 1998, pp. 121, 123–124, 126
^
- Hall & Sabl 2022, pp. 1–2
- Gay 2006, p. 189
^ Maxwell 2023, pp. 609–610
^ Boonin 2022, p. 1
^ See, for example, Lapsley (2006) and "moral psychology" (2007).
^ See, for example, Doris & Stich (2008) and Wallace (2007). Wallace writes: "Moral psychology is the study of morality in its psychological dimensions" (p. 86).
^ See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
^ Doris Schroeder. "Evolutionary Ethics". Archived from the original on October 7, 2013. Retrieved January 5, 2010.
^ Hary Gunarto, Ethical Issues in Cyberspace and IT Society, Symposium on Whither The Age of Uncertainty, APU Univ., paper Archived October 26, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Jan. 2003
^
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 394
- Norman 2005, p. 622
^
^
- Perrett 2016, Indian philosophy: a brief historical overview, The ancient period of Indian philosophy
- Tebbit 2013, p. 400
^
- Thapar 1978, p. 48
- Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy
^
- Littlejohn, § 1b. Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.) of the Analects, § 1e. The Daodejing
- Boyd & Timpe 2021, p. 64
- Slingerland 2007, p. 77
^
- Norman 2005, p. 623
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 394–396, 398
^
- Norman 2005, p. 623
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 396–398
^
- Norman 2005, p. 623
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 397–398
^
- Norman 2005, p. 623
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 399–400
^
- Norman 2005, p. 623
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 401
^
- Norman 2005, p. 623
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 403–404
^
- Mattila 2022, p. 2
- Sajoo 2008, p. 60
^
- Dalal 2021, Lead Section
- Ranganathan, Lead Section, § 4b. Rāmānuja’s Soteriology
- Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy
^
- Norman 2005, p. 624
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 404–406
^
- Norman 2005, p. 624
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 408–409
^
- Norman 2005, p. 625
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 410–412
^
- Norman 2005, p. 624–625
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 412–414
^ Norman 2005, p. 626
^
- Norman 2005, p. 626
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 418–419
^
- Norman 2005, p. 626
- Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 429–430
^
- McDonald 2017, pp. 95–96
- Lazari-Radek & Singer 2017, pp. 282–283
^ Norman 2005, p. 627
^
- Das 2021, pp. 118–119
- Wenar 2021, § 4. Justice as Fairness: Justice within a Liberal Society
^ Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 421–422
^ Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 426–428
^
- Norlock 2019, Lead Section
- Imafidon 2015, p. 211

Sources

Abelson, Raziel; Nielsen, Kai (2006). "Ethics, History of". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3: Determinables–Fuzzy Logic (2. ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0-02-866072-1.
Adler, Mortimer (1985). Ten Philosophical Mistakes: Basic Errors In Modern Thought – How they came about, their consequences, and how to avoid them. Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-500330-5.
Boyd, Craig A.; Timpe, Kevin (March 25, 2021). The Virtues: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-258407-6.
Brandon, S. G. F. (1975). "The Idea of the Judgment of the Dead in Ancient Near East". In Hinnells, John R. (ed.). Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-0536-7.
Dalal, Neil (2021). "Śaṅkara". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 18, 2023.
Grayling, A. C. (June 20, 2019). The History of Philosophy. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-241-98086-6. Archived from the original on July 3, 2023. Retrieved May 24, 2023.
Hoy, David Couzens (February 20, 2004). Critical Resistance: From Poststructuralism to Post-Critique. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/2217.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-262-27579-8. OCLC 57141749.
Imafidon, E. (June 2, 2015). The Ethics of Subjectivity: Perspectives since the Dawn of Modernity. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-47242-7.
Karenga, Maulana (2004). Maat, the Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt: A Study in Classical African Ethics. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-94753-4.
Littlejohn, Ronnie. "Chinese Philosophy: Overview of History". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 18, 2023.
Mattila, Janne (April 25, 2022). The Eudaimonist Ethics of al-Fārābī and Avicenna. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-50691-6.
Norlock, Kathryn (2019). "Feminist Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 18, 2023.
Norman, Richard (2005). "Moral Philosophy, History of". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199264797.
Ortiz, Melba Vélez (February 13, 2020). "Preface". Maatian Ethics in a Communication Context. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-04831-5.
Perrett, Roy W. (February 4, 2016). An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85356-9. Archived from the original on June 22, 2023. Retrieved June 9, 2023.
Ranganathan, Shyam. "Ramanuja". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 18, 2023.
Sajoo, Amyn (November 30, 2008). Muslim Ethics: Emerging Vistas. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85771-495-4.
Slingerland, Edward (May 24, 2007). Effortless Action: Wu-wei As Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-987457-6.
Tebbit, Mark (July 4, 2013). The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-58277-7. Archived from the original on June 22, 2023. Retrieved June 10, 2023.
Thapar, Romila (1978). Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 978-81-250-0808-8.
Rosati, Connie S. (2016). "Moral Motivation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 21, 2023.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2019). "Moral Skepticism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 21, 2023.
Harrison, Ross (2005). "Meta-ethics". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199264797.
DeLapp, Kevin M. "Metaethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Sayre-McCord, Geoff (2023). "Metaethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Sayre-McCord, Geoff (2023a). "Moral Realism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Gowans, Chris (2021). "Moral Relativism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Westacott, Emrys. "Moral Relativism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Dreier, James (June 11, 2007). "Moral Relativism and Moral Nihilism". In Copp, David (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325911.003.0010. ISBN 9780199892075.
Krellenstein, Marc (2017). "Moral Nihilism and its Implications". The Journal of Mind and Behavior. 38 (1). ISSN 0271-0137.
Lutz, Matthew (2023). "Moral Naturalism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 20, 2023.
FitzPatrick, William J. (2011). "Ethical Non-Naturalism and Normative Properties". In Brady, Michael (ed.). New Waves in Metaethics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-0-230-29489-9.
Ridge, Michael (2019). "Moral Non-Naturalism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 20, 2023.
Shafer-Landau, Russ (July 16, 2020). Oxford Studies in Metaethics Volume 15. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-260331-9.
Miller, Christian B. (October 19, 2023). "Overview of Contemporary Metaethics and Normative Ethical Theory". In Miller, Christian B. (ed.). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Ethics. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-350-21790-4.
Moreland, J. P.; Craig, William Lane (October 10, 2017). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-8917-4.
Das, Kantilal (August 18, 2021). The Paradigm of Justice: A Contemporary Debate between John Rawls and Amartya Sen. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-43681-5.
Wenar, Leif (2021). "John Rawls". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna de; Singer, Peter (January 12, 2017). "Parfit on Objectivity and 'the Profoundest Problem of Ethics'". In Singer, Peter (ed.). Does Anything Really Matter?: Essays on Parfit on Objectivity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-108439-3.
McDonald, Fritz J. (July 5, 2017). "4. Beyond Objectivism and Subjectivism". In Makowski, Piotr (ed.). Praxiology and the Reasons for Action. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-49716-9.
Robson, Gregory J.; Tsou, Jonathan Y. (January 31, 2023). Technology Ethics: A Philosophical Introduction and Readings. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-83023-1.
Elrod, Edwin M.; Smith, Martha M. (2005). "Information Ethics". In Mitcham, Carl (ed.). Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics. 3: L - R. Detroit, Mich. Munich: Thomson Gale. ISBN 978-0028658346.
Christians, Clifford G. (2005). "Communication Ethics". In Mitcham, Carl (ed.). Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics. 3: L - R. Detroit, Mich. Munich: Thomson Gale. ISBN 978-0028658346.
Hall, Edward; Sabl, Andrew (September 13, 2022). Hall, Edward; Sabl, Andrew (eds.). Political Ethics: A Handbook. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-23131-0.
Gay, William C. (2006). "A Normative Framework for Addressing Peace and Related Global Issues". In Boersema, David; Brown, Katy Gray (eds.). Spiritual and Political Dimensions of Nonviolence and Peace. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-420-2061-0.
Boonin, David (February 8, 2022). "1. Introduction: Sex, Ethics, and Philosophy". In Boonin, David (ed.). The Palgrave Handbook of Sexual Ethics. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-87786-6.
Maxwell, Bruce (2023). "Educational Ethics". In Poff, Deborah C.; Michalos, Alex C. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-22767-8.
Sorabji, Richard; Rodin, David (2007). "Introduction". In Sorabji, Richard; Rodin, David (eds.). The Ethics of War: Shared Problems in Different Traditions (Repr ed.). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 9780754654483.
Lazar, Seth (2020). "War". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 25, 2023.
Frowe, Helen (2021). "The ethics of war". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 25, 2023.
Mitcham, Carl (August 2, 2022). Thinking through Technology: The Path between Engineering and Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-82539-7.
Almond, Brenda (1998). "Applied ethics". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L005-1. Retrieved December 23, 2023.
Dittmer, Joel. "Ethics, Applied". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 23, 2023.
Petersen, Thomas Søbirk; Ryberg, Jesper (2022). "Applied Ethics". Oxford Bibliographies. Retrieved December 23, 2023.
Winkler, E. R. (January 1, 1998). "Applied Ethics, Overview". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Braunack-Mayer, A. J.; Street, J. M.; Palmer, N. (January 1, 1998). "Technology, Ethics of: Overview". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Airaksinen, T. (January 1, 1998). "Professional Ethics". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Fotion, N. (January 1, 1998). "Military Ethics". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Rendtorff, J. D. (January 1, 1998). "Business Ethics, Overview". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Sandler, R. (January 1, 1998). "Environmental Ethics, Overview". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Delden, J. J. M. van (January 1, 1998). "Euthanasia (Physician-Assisted Suicide)". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Gillon, R. (January 1, 1998). "Bioethics, Overview". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Beaucham, Tom L. (2003). "The Nature of Applied Ethics". In Frey, R. G.; Wellman, Christopher Heath (eds.). A Companion to Applied Ethics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-7190-8.
Darwall, Stephen L. (2003). "Theories of Ethics". In Frey, R. G.; Wellman, Christopher Heath (eds.). A Companion to Applied Ethics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-7190-8.
Ryberg, Jesper (June 1, 2010). Applied Ethics: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-980865-6.
Meynell, Letitia; Paron, Clarisse (June 16, 2023). Applied Ethics Primer. Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-77048-899-1.
Chakraborti, Chhanda (September 17, 2023). Introduction to Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Contemporary Issues. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-981-99-0707-6.
Gordon, John-Stewart. "Bioethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 23, 2023.
Wilson, Scott D. "Animals and Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 24, 2023.
Holmes, Robert L. (2018). Introduction to applied ethics. London Oxford New York New Delhi Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-3500-2980-4.
Francione, Gary L. (April 1, 2004). "Animals - Property or Persons?". In Sunstein, Cass R.; Nussbaum, Martha C. (eds.). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-803473-5.
Yount, Lisa (2007). Animal Rights. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-3063-7.
Brennan, Andrew; Lo, Norva Y. S. (2022). "Environmental Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 24, 2023.
Cochrane, Alasdair. "Environmental Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 24, 2023.
Smith, Kimberly K. (April 10, 2018). Exploring Environmental Ethics: An Introduction. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-77395-7.
Dueñas, María del Pilar Muñoz; Lucia, Aiello; Rosario, Cabrita; Mauro, Gatti (February 23, 2018). Corporate Social Responsibility for Valorization of Cultural Organizations. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-5225-3552-2.
Catalano, George D. (June 1, 2022). Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth, Second Edition. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-02115-2.
Parker, Christine; Evans, Adrian (February 22, 2007). Inside Lawyers' Ethics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-46128-3.
Medvecky, Fabien; Leach, Joan (November 1, 2019). An Ethics of Science Communication. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-32116-1.
Mentan, Tatah (January 3, 2022). Understanding Contemporary Journalism: A Handbook of Principles and Practice. African Books Collective. ISBN 978-9956-552-91-7.
Patching, Roger; Hirst, Martin (November 20, 2013). Journalism Ethics: Arguments and cases for the twenty-first century. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-96374-5.
Kvalnes, Øyvind (2023). "Communication Ethics". Communication Climate at Work: Fostering Friendly Friction in Organisations. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-031-28971-2.
ten Have, Henk; Patrão Neves, Maria do Céu (2021). "Information Ethics". Dictionary of Global Bioethics. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-54161-3.
Tzafestas, Spyros G. (July 27, 2015). Roboethics: A Navigating Overview. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-21714-7.
Wolfendale, Jessica (2007). "Professional Ethics and the Military". Torture and the Military Profession. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-0-230-59280-3.
Baumann, Dieter (December 2007). "Military Ethics: A Task for Armies". Military Medicine. 172 (Supplement 2). doi:10.7205/MILMED.173.Supplement_2.34.

External links

Library resources about
Ethics

Meta-Ethics at PhilPapers
Normative Ethics at PhilPapers
Applied Ethics at PhilPapers
Ethics at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
"Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
An Introduction to Ethics Archived June 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
Ethics, 2d ed., 1973. by William Frankena
Ethics Bites Archived November 22, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Open University podcast series podcast exploring ethical dilemmas in everyday life.
National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature Archived June 21, 2007, at the Wayback Machine World's largest library for ethical issues in medicine and biomedical research
Ethics Archived March 27, 2010, at the Wayback Machine entry in Encyclopædia Britannica by Peter Singer
The Philosophy of Ethics on Philosophy Archive
Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics Resources, events, and research on a range of ethical subjects from a Christian perspective.
Basic principle of ethics summary talk
International Association for Geoethics (IAGETH)
International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG)
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University Resources for analyzing real-world ethical issues and tools to address them.
Ethics public domain audiobook at LibriVox

[:0-1] Verst, Ludger; Kampmann, Susanne; Eilers, Franz-Josef (July 27, 2015). Die Literaturrundschau. Communicatio Socialis. OCLC 914511982.

[iep.utm.edu-2] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ""Ethics"". Archived from the original on January 18, 2018. Retrieved January 7, 2012.

[3] Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Entry on Axiology. Archived March 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine

[4] Martinez, Veronica Root (October 23, 2019). "More Meaningful Ethics". University of Chicago Law Review. Chicago, IL. SSRN 3474344. Archived from the original on July 30, 2022. Retrieved November 18, 2021.

[5] An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. New York, Harper & Brothers. 1889. p. 349.

[6] Kidder, Rushworth (2003). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: HarperCollins. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-688-17590-0.

[Reference_A-7] Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. p. NP. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.

[8] John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995.

[ReferenceA-9] Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. p. np. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.

[10] "Definition of ethic by Merriam Webster". Merriam Webster. Archived from the original on October 24, 2016. Retrieved October 4, 2015.

[11] Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p. 2.

[12] Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p. 1.

[13] "Are We Professionals? A Critical Look at the Social Role of Bioethicists". Daedalus. 1999. pp. 253–274.

[14] 
Harrison 2005, pp. 588–589
DeLapp, Lead Section
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section

[15] Harrison 2005, pp. 588–589

[16] DeLapp, Lead Section

[17] Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section

[15] 
DeLapp, Lead Section, § 2. The Normative Relevance of Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 1. General Observations

[19] DeLapp, Lead Section, § 2. The Normative Relevance of Metaethics

[20] Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 1. General Observations

[16] 
DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4. Ontological Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 3. Naturalism and Non-naturalism

[22] DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4. Ontological Issues in Metaethics

[23] Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 3. Naturalism and Non-naturalism

[17] 
DeLapp, Lead Section, § 3. Semantic Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 4. Is/Ought and the Open Question Argument

[25] DeLapp, Lead Section, § 3. Semantic Issues in Metaethics

[26] Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 4. Is/Ought and the Open Question Argument

[18] 
DeLapp, Lead Section, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[28] DeLapp, Lead Section, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics

[29] Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[19] 
DeLapp, Lead Section, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics, 7. Anthropological Considerations
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 6. Morals, Motives, and Reasons, § 7. Freedom and Responsibility

[31] DeLapp, Lead Section, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics, 7. Anthropological Considerations

[32] Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead Section, § 6. Morals, Motives, and Reasons, § 7. Freedom and Responsibility

[20] 
DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4a. Moral Realisms
Sayre-McCord 2023a, Lead Section

[34] DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[35] Sayre-McCord 2023a, Lead Section

[21] 
DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4a. Moral Realisms
Sayre-McCord 2023a, Lead Section

[37] DeLapp, Lead Section, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[38] Sayre-McCord 2023a, Lead Section

[22] DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[23] 
Sayre-McCord 2023a, § 1. Moral Disagreement
DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[41] Sayre-McCord 2023a, § 1. Moral Disagreement

[42] DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[24] 
DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms
Gowans 2021, Lead Section, § 2. Forms and Arguments
Westacott, Lead Section
Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241

[44] DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms

[45] Gowans 2021, Lead Section, § 2. Forms and Arguments

[46] Westacott, Lead Section

[47] Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241

[25] 
Westacott, § 2g. Moral Relativism
Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical Moral Relativism

[49] Westacott, § 2g. Moral Relativism

[50] Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical Moral Relativism

[26] Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241

[27] 
DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms
Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical Moral Relativism

[53] DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms

[54] Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical Moral Relativism

[28] Dreier 2007, p. 241

[29] 
Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241
Krellenstein 2017, pp. 75–90

[57] Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241

[58] Krellenstein 2017, pp. 75–90

[30] Dreier 2007, pp. 241–242

[31] 
Lutz 2023, Lead Section, § 1. What is Moral Naturalism?
DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[61] Lutz 2023, Lead Section, § 1. What is Moral Naturalism?

[62] DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[32] 
Lutz 2023, § 1. What is Moral Naturalism?, § 2. Descriptivism and Reductivism
DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[64] Lutz 2023, § 1. What is Moral Naturalism?, § 2. Descriptivism and Reductivism

[65] DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms

[33] 
FitzPatrick 2011, pp. 7–35, Ethical Non-Naturalism and Normative Properties
Ridge 2019, Lead Section

[67] FitzPatrick 2011, pp. 7–35, Ethical Non-Naturalism and Normative Properties

[68] Ridge 2019, Lead Section

[34] 
Ridge 2019, § 1. The Naturalistic Fallacy
Shafer-Landau 2020, p. 148

[70] Ridge 2019, § 1. The Naturalistic Fallacy

[71] Shafer-Landau 2020, p. 148

[35] 
DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism
Miller 2023, pp. 14–15

[73] DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism

[74] Miller 2023, pp. 14–15

[36] Miller 2023, pp. 14–15

[37] 
Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism
Moreland & Craig 2017, p. 417

[77] Miller 2023, pp. 14–15

[78] DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism

[79] Moreland & Craig 2017, p. 417

[38] 
DeLapp, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[81] DeLapp, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics

[82] Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[39] 
DeLapp, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[84] DeLapp, § 6. Epistemological Issues in Metaethics

[85] Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[40] 
Sinnott-Armstrong 2019, Lead Section, § 1. Varieties of Moral Skepticism, § 2. A Presumption against Moral Skepticism?
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[87] Sinnott-Armstrong 2019, Lead Section, § 1. Varieties of Moral Skepticism, § 2. A Presumption against Moral Skepticism?

[88] Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral Epistemology

[41] 
DeLapp, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 6. Morals, Motives, and Reasons
Rosati 2016, Lead Section, § 3. Moral Judgment and Motivation

[90] DeLapp, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics

[91] Sayre-McCord 2023, § 6. Morals, Motives, and Reasons

[92] Rosati 2016, Lead Section, § 3. Moral Judgment and Motivation

[42] Rosati 2016, Lead Section, § 3. Moral Judgment and Motivation

[bbc-43] "What is ethics?". BBC. Archived from the original on October 28, 2013. Retrieved July 22, 2014.

[44] Cavalier, Robert. "Meta-ethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics". Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Archived from the original on November 12, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2014.

[SahakianSahakian1966-45] William S. Sahakian; Mabel Lewis Sahakian (1966). Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.

[46] Velusamy, N.; Faraday, Moses Michael, eds. (2017). Why Should Thirukkural Be Declared the National Book of India?. Unique Media Integrators. p. 55. ISBN 978-93-85471-70-4.

[Sanjeevi_SeminarPapers-47] N. Sanjeevi (1973). First All India Tirukkural Seminar Papers (2nd ed.). Chennai: University of Madras. p. xxiii–xxvii.

[Vries-48] Professor Michiel S.S. De De Vries; Professor Pan Suk Kim (2011). Value and Virtue in Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-230-35709-9.

[49] Nussbaum, Martha (1987). Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach.

[ethics-50] John Newton, Ph.D., Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century (2000). ISBN 0-9673705-7-4.

[FOOTNOTEAdler1985194-51] Adler 1985, p. 194.

[52] Ancient Ethical Theory Archived May 15, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[readings-53] Ivanhoe, P. J.; Van Norden, Bryan William (2005). Readings in classical Chinese philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-87220-780-6. he advocated a form of state consequentialism, which sought to maximize three basic goods: the wealth, order, and population of the state

[54] Fraser, Chris, "Mohism Archived March 21, 2019, at the Wayback Machine", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta.

[Cambridge-55] Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1999). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press. p. 761. ISBN 978-0-521-47030-8.

[Norden-56] Van Norden, Bryan W. (2011). Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-60384-468-0.

[Handbook-57] Jay L. Garfield; William Edelglass (2011). The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-19-532899-8. Archived from the original on April 25, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016. The goods that serve as criteria of morality are collective or public, in contrast, for instance, to individual happiness or well-being

[Anscombe-58] Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy". Philosophy. 33 (124): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943. S2CID 197875941. Archived from the original on January 31, 2010. Retrieved December 14, 2009.

[Mackie-59] Mackie, J. L. (1990) [1977]. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-013558-9.

[60] Baqgini, Julian; Fosl, Peter S. (2007). The Ethics Toolkit: A Compendium of Ethical Concepts and Methods. Malden: Blackwell. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-1-4051-3230-5.

[61] Bentham, Jeremy (2001). The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media Corporation. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4021-6393-7.

[John_Stuart_Mill-62] "Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism (Project Gutenberg online edition)". Archived from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved June 28, 2012.

[Mill-63] Mill, John Stuart (1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875163-2. Archived from the original on June 19, 2012. Retrieved June 28, 2012.

[Carnegie_Mellon_University-64] "Utilitarian Theories". Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University. 1996. Archived from the original on May 20, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2017.

[plato.stanford.edu-65] "Deontological Ethics". Stanford.edu. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2021. Archived from the original on April 25, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2012.

[66] Olson, Robert G. 1967. 'Deontological Ethics'. In Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan: 343.

[Orend,_Brian_2000-67] Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press: 19.

[68] Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press: 160.

[69] Kant, Immanuel (1889). The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Longmans, Green & Co. Archived from the original on October 14, 2016. Preface and Introduction to Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre Archived March 22, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, 1797. Abbott's deontology translates Kant's Pflichtenlehre.

[transition-70] Kant, Immanuel. 1785. 'First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical', Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

[71] Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (ed.). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project Gutenberg. p. 23.

[72] "Über ein vermeintes Recht aus Menschenliebe zu lügen", Berlinische Blätter 1 (1797), 301–314; edited in: Werke in zwölf Bänden, vol. 8, Frankfurt am Main (1977), zeno.org/nid/20009192123 Archived July 30, 2022, at the Wayback Machine.

[73] Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory". Noûs, Vol. 17, No. 3: 387–407.

[74] Cudworth, Ralph. 1731. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality. Reprinted in 1996. Sarah Hutton (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[75] Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 53

[76] Collin 2007, p. 78

[Shabani-77] Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 54

[78] Payrow Shabani 2003, pp. 55–56

[Lafollette2000-79] Lafollette, Hugh, ed. (2000). The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Blackwell Philosophy Guides (1 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20119-9.

[GILLIGAN2009-80] Cite error: The named reference GILLIGAN2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[81] Tong, Rosemarie; Williams, Nancy (May 4, 2009). "Feminist Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab. Archived from the original on September 11, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2017.

[82] Noddings, Nel: Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, pp. 3–4. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.

[83] Noddings, Nel: Women and Evil, p. 222. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989.

[84] Ettinger, Bracha L., "Matrix and Metramorphosis." In: Differences. Vol. 4, nº 3, 1992.

[85] Ettinger, Bracha L., Proto-ethica Matricial, Gedisa, 2019.

[86] Bracha L. Ettinger, The Matrixial Gaze. Fine Art, Leeds University, 1995.

[87] Bracha L. Ettinger, "Trans-Subjective Transferential Borderspace." In: Mazin, V., Tourkina, O., and Seppala, M., eds. Doctor and Patient. Memory and Amnesia. Ylojarvi: Pori Art Museum Publications, 1997. Reprinted: Brian Massumi, ed. A Shock to Thought. Routledge, 2002

[88] Bracha L. Ettinger, "Wit(h)nessing Trauma and the Gaze." In: Vandenbroeck, P. et al eds. The Fascinating Face of Flanders. Through Art and Society (English, Portuguese, Flemish). Stad Antwerpen, 1998

[89] Bracha L. Ettinger, Matrixial Subjectivity, Aesthetics, Ethics. Vol 1: 1990–2000. Ed. by Griselda Pollock. Pelgrave Macmillan 2020

[90] Pollock, Griselda. "Aesthetic Wit(h)nessing in the Era of Trauma." In: EurAmerica vol 40 n. 4, December 2010 <http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/eu_file/12929220264.pdf Archived February 19, 2022, at the Wayback Machine>

[91] Pollock, Griselda. Generations and Geographies. Routledge, 1996.

[92] "Bracha L Ettinger Metafeminist and Feminist Notes. Oxytocin Mothering the World, London March 2019". YouTube. Archived from the original on February 20, 2022. Retrieved February 24, 2022.

[93] Ettinger, Bracha L., "Beyond the Death-drive, Beyond the Life-drive – Being – toward-Birthing with Being-toward-Birth. Copoiesis and the Matrixial Eros—Metafeminist Notes." in: Aberrant Nuptials. Edited by P. de Assis & P. Giudici. Leuven Univ. Press. 2019.

[94] "Communicaring". In: PostGender: Sexuality and Performativeivity in Japanese Culture. Ed. Ayelet Zohar. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010

[95] Mandeville, Kat, Seduction into Life. NY: Antropos, 2016.

[96] Emmanuel Levinas and Bracha L. Ettinger, Time is the Breath of the Spirit. Oxford: Museum of Modern Art, 1993.

[97] Emmanuel Levinas and Bracha L. Ettinger, Que dirait Eurydice?"/"What Would Eurydice Say? Paris: BLE Atelier, 1997. Reprinted in Athena: Philosophical Studies. Vol. 2, 2006. http://lkti.lt/athena/pdf/2/100-145.pdf Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine

[98] Bracha L. Ettinger, "Fascinance. The Woman-to-woman (Girl-to-m/Other) Matrixial Feminine Difference." In: Pollock, Griselda, ed. Psychoanalysis and the Image. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

[99] Bracha L. Ettinger, "Diotima and the Matrixial Transference: Psychoanalytical Encounter-Event as Pregnancy in Beauty." In: der Merwe, V., Chris N., Viljoen, H., eds. Across the Threshold. Peter Lang, 2007.

[100] Birgit M. Kaiser, Kathrin Thiele, "If You Do Well, Carry! The Difference of the Humane: An Interview with Bracha L. Ettinger". philoSOPHIA, Volume 8, Number 1, Winter 2018, pp. 101–125 (Article). https://doi.org/10.1353/phi.2018.0005

[101] Smith, Marielle, "Subjectivity as Encounter: Feminine Ethics in the Work of Bracha Lichtenberg-Ettinger and Anne Enright", Hypatia Vol. 28, No. 3 (Summer 2013)

[102] Angie Voela and Cigdem Esin, "Movement, Embrace: Adriana Cavarero with Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger (and the Death Drive)", Hypatia 36 (1):101–119 (2021)

[103] Cavanagh, Sheila, "Bracha L. Ettinger, Jacques Lacan and Tiresias: The Other Sexual Difference". The Site for Contemporary Psychoanalysis, n. 18 2018. Archived February 19, 2022, at the Wayback Machine

[Ames-104] Roger T. Ames (2011). Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary. University of Hawaiʻi Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-3576-7.

[Fraser-105] Chris Fraser; Dan Robins; Timothy O'Leary (2011). Ethics in Early China: An Anthology. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 17–35. ISBN 978-988-8028-93-1. Archived from the original on May 12, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016.

[106] Sim, May, 2015, "Why Confucius' Ethics is a Virtue Ethics", in Besser-Jones and Slote (2015), pp. 63–76

[Chang-107] Wonsuk Chang; Leah Kalmanson (2010). Confucianism in Context: Classic Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, East Asia and Beyond. SUNY Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-4384-3191-8. Archived from the original on May 6, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016.

[108] ""Ethics: Origin and Development" by Pëtr Kropotkin" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved August 11, 2014.

[109] ""Anarchist morality", chapter VI, Pëtr Kropotkin". Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved November 4, 2015.

[110] Bauman, Zygmunt (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 84, 245.

[FOOTNOTEHoy2004103-111] Hoy 2004, p. 103.

[FOOTNOTEHoy20048-112] Hoy 2004, p. 8.

[FOOTNOTEHoy2004184-113] Hoy 2004, p. 184.

[114] 
Darwall 2003, p. 17
Chakraborti 2023, p. 619–620

[166] Darwall 2003, p. 17

[167] Chakraborti 2023, p. 619–620

[115] 
Almond 1998, Lead Section, § 1. Definitions
Dittmer, Lead Section, § 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Normative Ethics and Metaethics
Petersen & Ryberg 2022
Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175

[169] Almond 1998, Lead Section, § 1. Definitions

[170] Dittmer, Lead Section, § 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Normative Ethics and Metaethics

[171] Petersen & Ryberg 2022

[172] Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175

[116] Winkler 1998, pp. 175–176

[117] Beaucham 2003, pp. 7–9

[118] 
Beaucham 2003, pp. 7–9
Winkler 1998, p. 176–117
Almond 1998, § 2. Theory and practice

[176] Beaucham 2003, pp. 7–9

[177] Winkler 1998, p. 176–117

[178] Almond 1998, § 2. Theory and practice

[119] Almond 1998, § 2. Theory and practice

[120] Almond 1998, § 1. Definitions

[121] 
Ryberg 2010, p. 3
Meynell & Paron 2023, p. 11
Chakraborti 2023, p. 620
Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175

[182] Ryberg 2010, p. 3

[183] Meynell & Paron 2023, p. 11

[184] Chakraborti 2023, p. 620

[185] Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175

[122] 
Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Gordon, Lead Section
Gillon 1998, pp. 267–268

[187] Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics

[188] Gordon, Lead Section

[189] Gillon 1998, pp. 267–268

[123] 
Gordon, Lead Section, § 4. The Idea of Moral Status in Bioethics
Dittmer, § 4a. Theories of Moral Standing and Personhood

[191] Gordon, Lead Section, § 4. The Idea of Moral Status in Bioethics

[192] Dittmer, § 4a. Theories of Moral Standing and Personhood

[124] 
Holmes 2018, pp. 288–289
Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics

[194] Holmes 2018, pp. 288–289

[195] Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics

[125] 
Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Gordon, Lead Section, § 1. Preliminary Distinctions

[197] Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics

[198] Gordon, Lead Section, § 1. Preliminary Distinctions

[126] Gordon, Lead Section, § 3a. Introduction

[127] Gordon, Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics

[128] 
Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Gordon, Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics

[202] Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics

[203] Gordon, Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics

[129] 
Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Delden 1998, pp. 200–201

[205] Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics

[206] Delden 1998, pp. 200–201

[130] Gordon, Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics

[131] 
Wilson, Lead Section
Gordon, Lead Section, § 3c. Animal Ethics
Holmes 2018, pp. 317–319

[209] Wilson, Lead Section

[210] Gordon, Lead Section, § 3c. Animal Ethics

[211] Holmes 2018, pp. 317–319

[132] Holmes 2018, pp. 333–334

[133] 
Francione 2004, pp. 115–116
Yount 2007, p. 26

[214] Francione 2004, pp. 115–116

[215] Yount 2007, p. 26

[134] 
Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics
Sandler 1998, pp. 105–106
Brennan & Lo 2022, Lead Section

[217] Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics

[218] Sandler 1998, pp. 105–106

[219] Brennan & Lo 2022, Lead Section

[135] 
Brennan & Lo 2022, § 1. Introduction: The Challenge of Environmental Ethics
Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics

[221] Brennan & Lo 2022, § 1. Introduction: The Challenge of Environmental Ethics

[222] Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics

[136] 
Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics
Cochrane, § 2. Radical Ecology
Smith 2018, p. 36

[224] Gordon, § 3d. Environmental Ethics

[225] Cochrane, § 2. Radical Ecology

[226] Smith 2018, p. 36

[137] 
Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366
Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics

[228] Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366

[229] Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics

[138] 
Dueñas et al. 2018, pp. xv–xvi
Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics
Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366

[231] Dueñas et al. 2018, pp. xv–xvi

[232] Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics

[233] Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366

[139] 
Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366
Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics

[235] Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366

[236] Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics

[140] 
Airaksinen 1998
Dittmer, § 5. Professional Ethics

[238] Airaksinen 1998

[239] Dittmer, § 5. Professional Ethics

[141] Airaksinen 1998, pp. 617–620

[142] Catalano 2022, p. 17

[143] Parker & Evans 2007, pp. 22–23

[144] 
Medvecky & Leach 2019, p. 35
Mentan 2022, p. 280
Patching & Hirst 2013, p. 69

[244] Medvecky & Leach 2019, p. 35

[245] Mentan 2022, p. 280

[246] Patching & Hirst 2013, p. 69

[145] 
Kvalnes 2023, pp. 101, 105
Christians 2005

[248] Kvalnes 2023, pp. 101, 105

[249] Christians 2005

[146] 
ten Have & Patrão Neves 2021, p. 633
Elrod & Smith 2005

[251] ten Have & Patrão Neves 2021, p. 633

[252] Elrod & Smith 2005

[147] Braunack-Mayer, Street & Palmer 1998, pp. 321–322

[148] 
Braunack-Mayer, Street & Palmer 1998, pp. 323–326
Robson & Tsou 2023, pp. 16–17

[255] Braunack-Mayer, Street & Palmer 1998, pp. 323–326

[256] Robson & Tsou 2023, pp. 16–17

[149] 
Tzafestas 2015, p. 2
Mitcham 2022, p. 101

[258] Tzafestas 2015, p. 2

[259] Mitcham 2022, p. 101

[150] 
Frowe 2021, Lead Section
Lazar 2020, Lead Section, § 3. Jus ad Bellum, § 4. Jus in Bello
Sorabji & Rodin 2007, pp. 2–3

[261] Frowe 2021, Lead Section

[262] Lazar 2020, Lead Section, § 3. Jus ad Bellum, § 4. Jus in Bello

[263] Sorabji & Rodin 2007, pp. 2–3

[151] 
Wolfendale 2007, pp. 47–78
Baumann 2007, pp. 34–35

[265] Wolfendale 2007, pp. 47–78

[266] Baumann 2007, pp. 34–35

[152] Fotion 1998, pp. 121, 123–124, 126

[153] 
Hall & Sabl 2022, pp. 1–2
Gay 2006, p. 189

[269] Hall & Sabl 2022, pp. 1–2

[270] Gay 2006, p. 189

[154] Maxwell 2023, pp. 609–610

[155] Boonin 2022, p. 1

[156] See, for example, Lapsley (2006) and "moral psychology" (2007).

[157] See, for example, Doris & Stich (2008) and Wallace (2007). Wallace writes: "Moral psychology is the study of morality in its psychological dimensions" (p. 86).

[158] See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.

[159] Doris Schroeder. "Evolutionary Ethics". Archived from the original on October 7, 2013. Retrieved January 5, 2010.

[160] Hary Gunarto, Ethical Issues in Cyberspace and IT Society, Symposium on Whither The Age of Uncertainty, APU Univ., paper Archived October 26, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Jan. 2003

[161] 
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 394
Norman 2005, p. 622

[279] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 394

[280] Norman 2005, p. 622

[162] 
Brandon 1975, The Idea of the Judgment of the Dead in Ancient Near East
Ortiz 2020, Preface
Karenga 2004, pp. 175–176

[282] Brandon 1975, The Idea of the Judgment of the Dead in Ancient Near East

[283] Ortiz 2020, Preface

[284] Karenga 2004, pp. 175–176

[163] 
Perrett 2016, Indian philosophy: a brief historical overview, The ancient period of Indian philosophy
Tebbit 2013, p. 400

[286] Perrett 2016, Indian philosophy: a brief historical overview, The ancient period of Indian philosophy

[287] Tebbit 2013, p. 400

[164] 
Thapar 1978, p. 48
Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy

[289] Thapar 1978, p. 48

[290] Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy

[165] 
Littlejohn, § 1b. Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.) of the Analects, § 1e. The Daodejing
Boyd & Timpe 2021, p. 64
Slingerland 2007, p. 77

[292] Littlejohn, § 1b. Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.) of the Analects, § 1e. The Daodejing

[293] Boyd & Timpe 2021, p. 64

[294] Slingerland 2007, p. 77

[166] 
Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 394–396, 398

[296] Norman 2005, p. 623

[297] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 394–396, 398

[167] 
Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 396–398

[299] Norman 2005, p. 623

[300] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 396–398

[168] 
Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 397–398

[302] Norman 2005, p. 623

[303] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 397–398

[169] 
Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 399–400

[305] Norman 2005, p. 623

[306] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 399–400

[170] 
Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 401

[308] Norman 2005, p. 623

[309] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 401

[171] 
Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 403–404

[311] Norman 2005, p. 623

[312] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 403–404

[172] 
Mattila 2022, p. 2
Sajoo 2008, p. 60

[314] Mattila 2022, p. 2

[315] Sajoo 2008, p. 60

[173] 
Dalal 2021, Lead Section
Ranganathan, Lead Section, § 4b. Rāmānuja’s Soteriology
Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy

[317] Dalal 2021, Lead Section

[318] Ranganathan, Lead Section, § 4b. Rāmānuja’s Soteriology

[319] Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy

[174] 
Norman 2005, p. 624
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 404–406

[321] Norman 2005, p. 624

[322] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 404–406

[175] 
Norman 2005, p. 624
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 408–409

[324] Norman 2005, p. 624

[325] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 408–409

[176] 
Norman 2005, p. 625
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 410–412

[327] Norman 2005, p. 625

[328] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 410–412

[177] 
Norman 2005, p. 624–625
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 412–414

[330] Norman 2005, p. 624–625

[331] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 412–414

[178] Norman 2005, p. 626

[179] 
Norman 2005, p. 626
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 418–419

[334] Norman 2005, p. 626

[335] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 418–419

[180] 
Norman 2005, p. 626
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 429–430

[337] Norman 2005, p. 626

[338] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 429–430

[181] 
McDonald 2017, pp. 95–96
Lazari-Radek & Singer 2017, pp. 282–283

[340] McDonald 2017, pp. 95–96

[341] Lazari-Radek & Singer 2017, pp. 282–283

[182] Norman 2005, p. 627

[183] 
Das 2021, pp. 118–119
Wenar 2021, § 4. Justice as Fairness: Justice within a Liberal Society

[344] Das 2021, pp. 118–119

[345] Wenar 2021, § 4. Justice as Fairness: Justice within a Liberal Society

[184] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 421–422

[185] Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 426–428

[186] 
Norlock 2019, Lead Section
Imafidon 2015, p. 211

[349] Norlock 2019, Lead Section

[350] Imafidon 2015, p. 211

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

@@ Line 213: / Line 213: @@
 {{quote|The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable precisely because of the other's lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely undertaken and would not be in the realm of the ethical.{{sfn|Hoy|2004|p=184}} }}
-==Applied ethics==
+== Applied ethics ==
-{{Main|Applied ethics}}
+{{main|Applied ethics}}
-Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. The discipline has many specialized fields, such as [[engineering ethics]], [[bioethics]], [[geoethics]], public service ethics and [[business ethics]].
+Applied ethics, also known as practical ethics,<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Darwall|2003|p=17}} | {{harvnb|Chakraborti|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f5jXEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA619 619–620]}} }}</ref> is the branch of ethics and [[applied philosophy]] that examines concrete moral problems encountered in real-life situations. Unlike normative ethics, it is not concerned with discovering or justifying universal ethical principles. Instead, it studies how those principles can be applied to specific domains of practical life, what consequences they have in these fields, and whether other considerations are relevant.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Almond|1998|loc=Lead Section, § 1. Definitions}} | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=Lead Section, § 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Normative Ethics and Metaethics}} | {{harvnb|Petersen|Ryberg|2022}} | {{harvnb|Winkler|1998|pp=[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123739322000168 174–175]}} }}</ref>
-===Specific questions===
-Applied ethics is used in some aspects of determining [[public policy]], as well as by individuals facing difficult decisions. The sort of questions addressed by applied ethics include: [[Abortion debate|"Is getting an abortion immoral?"]]; "Is [[euthanasia]] immoral?"; "Is [[affirmative action]] right or wrong?"; "What are [[human rights]], and how do we determine them?"; "Do [[Animal rights|animals have rights]] as well?"; and "Do individuals have [[Self-determination|the right of self-determination]]?"<ref name=bbc/>
+[[File:Surgeons at Work.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of surgery|One of the difficulties of applied ethics is to determine how to apply general ethical principles to concrete practical situation, like [[medical procedure]]s.]]
-A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions, there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration—in fact, no common assumptions of all participants—so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying always wrong?" and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.
+One of the main challenges of applied ethics is to breach the gap between abstract universal theories and their application to concrete situations. For example, an in-depth understanding of Kantianism or utilitarianism is usually not sufficient to decide how to analyze the moral implications of a [[medical procedure]]. One reason is that it may not be clear how the procedure affects the Kantian requirement of respecting everyone's [[personhood]] and what the consequences of the procedure are in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number.<ref>{{harvnb|Winkler|1998|pp=[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123739322000168 175–176]}}</ref> This difficulty is particularly relevant to applied ethicists who employ a top-down [[methodology]] by starting from universal ethical principles and applying them to particular cases within a specific domain.<ref>{{harvnb|Beaucham|2003|pp=7–9}}</ref> A different approach is to use a bottom-up methodology, which relies on many observations of particular cases to arrive at an understanding of the moral principles relevant to this particular domain.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Beaucham|2003|pp=7–9}} | {{harvnb|Winkler|1998|p=[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123739322000168 176–117]}} | {{harvnb|Almond|1998|loc=§ 2. Theory and practice}} }}</ref> In either case, inquiry into applied ethics is often triggered by [[ethical dilemma]]s to solve cases in which a person is subject to conflicting moral requirements.<ref>{{harvnb|Almond|1998|loc=§ 2. Theory and practice}}</ref>
-People, in general, are more comfortable with dichotomies (two opposites). However, in ethics, the issues are most often multifaceted and the best-proposed actions address many different areas concurrently. In ethical decisions, the answer is almost never a "yes or no" or a "right or wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall condition is improved and not to the benefit of any particular faction.
+Applied ethics covers issues pertaining to both the [[private sphere]], like right conduct in the family and close relationships, and the [[public sphere]], like moral problems posed by new technologies and international duties toward future generations.<ref>{{harvnb|Almond|1998|loc=§ 1. Definitions}}</ref> Major branches include [[bioethics]], [[business ethics]], and [[professional ethics]]. There are many other branches and their domains of inquiry often overlap.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ryberg|2010|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZsCRosM367gC&pg=PA3 3]}} | {{harvnb|Meynell|Paron|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VrTFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11 11]}} | {{harvnb|Chakraborti|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f5jXEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA620 620]}} | {{harvnb|Winkler|1998|pp=[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123739322000168 174–175]}} }}</ref>
-And it has not only been shown that people consider the character of the moral agent (i.e. a principle implied in virtue ethics), the deed of the action (i.e. a principle implied in [[Deontological ethics|deontology]]), and the consequences of the action (i.e. a principle implied in utilitarianism) when formulating moral judgments, but moreover that the effect of each of these three components depends on the value of each component.<ref name="Moral judgment">{{cite journal|last1=Dubljević |first1=Veljko |last2=Sattler |first2=Sebastian |last3=Racine |first3=Eric |title= Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment|journal=[[PLOS One]]|volume=13|issue=10|page= e0206750|year=2018|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0204631|pmid= 30273370|bibcode= 2018PLoSO..1304631D|pmc=6166963|doi-access=free }}</ref>
+=== Bioethics ===
-===Particular fields of application===
-====Bioethics====
+{{main|Bioethics}}
+Bioethics is a wide field that covers moral problems associated with [[Life|living organisms]] and [[biological]] disciplines.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 3. Bioethics}} | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Gillon|1998|pp=267–268}} }}</ref> A key problem in bioethics concerns the moral status of entities and to what extent this status depends on features such as [[consciousness]], being able to feel pleasure and pain, [[rationality]], and personhood. These differences concern, for example, how to treat non-living entities like rocks and non-sentient entities like plants in contrast to animals and whether humans have a different moral status than other animals.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section, § 4. The Idea of Moral Status in Bioethics}} | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 4a. Theories of Moral Standing and Personhood}} }}</ref> According to [[anthropocentrism]], only humans have a basic moral status. This implies that all other entities only have a derivative moral status to the extent that they affect human life. [[Sentientism]], by contrast, extends an inherent moral status to all sentient beings. Further positions include [[Biocentrism (ethics)|biocentrism]], which also covers non-sentient lifeforms, and [[ecocentrism]], which states that all of nature has a basic moral status.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Holmes|2018|pp=288–289}} | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=§ 3d. Environmental Ethics}} }}</ref>
-{{Main|Bioethics}}
-{{See also|Islamic bioethics|Jewish medical ethics}}
-Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in [[biology]] and [[medicine]]. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among [[life sciences]], [[biotechnology]], [[medicine]], [[politics]], [[law]], and [[philosophy]]. It also includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values ([[primary care ethics|"the ethics of the ordinary"]]) that arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.
+Bioethics is relevant to various aspects of life and to many professions. It covers a wide range of moral problems associated with topics like [[abortion]], [[cloning]], [[stem cell research]], [[euthanasia]], [[suicide]], [[animal testing]], [[intensive animal farming]], [[nuclear waste]], and [[air pollution]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 3. Bioethics}} | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section, § 1. Preliminary Distinctions}} }}</ref>
-Bioethics also needs to address emerging biotechnologies that affect basic biology and future humans. These developments include [[cloning]], [[gene therapy]], [[human genetic engineering]], [[Space ethics|astroethics]] and life in space,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.astroethics.com/ |title=Astroethics |access-date=December 21, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131023060209/http://www.astroethics.com/ |archive-date=October 23, 2013 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref> and manipulation of basic biology through altered DNA, RNA and proteins, e.g. "three parent baby, where baby is born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Freemont|first1=P. F.|last2= Kitney|first2=R. I.|year=2012|title=Synthetic Biology|publisher=[[World Scientific]]|location =New Jersey|isbn=978-1-84816-862-6}}</ref> Correspondingly, new bioethics also need to address life at its core. For example, [[biotic ethics]] value organic gene/protein life itself and seek to propagate it.<ref name="Bioethics">{{cite journal|last=Mautner|first=Michael N.|title=Life-centered ethics, and the human future in space|journal=[[Bioethics (journal)|Bioethics]]|volume=23|issue=8|pages=433–440|year=2009|doi=10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00688.x|pmid=19077128|s2cid=25203457|url=http://www.astro-ecology.com/PDFLifeCenteredBioethics2009Paper.pdf|access-date=December 23, 2012|archive-date=November 2, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102064743/http://www.astro-ecology.com/PDFLifeCenteredBioethics2009Paper.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> With such life-centered principles, ethics may secure a cosmological future for life.<ref>{{cite book|last=Mautner|first=Michael N.|title=Seeding the Universe with Life: Securing Our Cosmological Future|location=Washington, DC|year=2000|isbn=978-0-476-00330-9|url=http://www.astro-ecology.com/PDFSeedingtheUniverse2005Book.pdf|access-date=December 23, 2012|archive-date=November 2, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102064713/http://www.astro-ecology.com/PDFSeedingtheUniverse2005Book.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
+Bioethics can be divided into [[medical ethics]], [[animal ethics]], and [[environmental ethics]] based on whether the ethical problems relate to humans, other animals, or nature in general.<ref>{{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section, § 3a. Introduction}}</ref> Medical ethics is the oldest branch of bioethics and has its origins in the [[Hippocratic Oath]], which establishes ethical guidelines for medical practitioners like a [[Medical ethics#Non-maleficence|prohibition to harm the patient]].<ref>{{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics}}</ref> A central topic in medical ethics concerns issues associated with the beginning and the end of life. One debate focuses on the question of whether a fetus is a full-fledged person with all the rights associated with this status. For example, some proponents of this view argue that abortion is a form of [[murder]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 3. Bioethics}} | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics}} }}</ref> In relation to the end of life, there are ethical dilemmas concerning whether a person has a right to end their own life in cases of terminal illness and whether a medical practitioner may [[Assisted suicide|assist them in doing so]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 3. Bioethics}} | {{harvnb|Delden|1998|pp=200–201}} }}</ref> Other topics in medical ethics include [[medical confidentiality]], [[informed consent]], research on human beings, [[organ transplantation]], and access to [[healthcare]].<ref>{{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section, § 3b. Medical Ethics}}</ref>
-====Business ethics====
-{{Main|Business ethics}}
-Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of [[applied ethics]] or [[professional ethics]] that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment, including fields like [[medical ethics]]. Business ethics represents the practices that any individual or group exhibits within an organization that can negatively or positively affect the businesses core values. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations.
+[[File:Battery hens -Bastos, Sao Paulo, Brazil-31March2007.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|alt=Photo of battery hens in Brazil|Harm done to animals is a particular concern in animal ethics, for example, as a result of [[intensive animal farming]].]]
-Business ethics has both [[Norm (philosophy)|normative]] and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflect the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns. Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."<ref>Smith, A (1776/1952). ''An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations''. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, p. 55.</ref> Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control.<ref>Berle, A.A., & Means, G.C. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. In this book, Berle and Means observe, "Corporations have ceased to be merely legal devices through which the private business transactions of individuals may be carried on. Though still much used for this purpose, the corporate form has acquired a much larger significance. The corporation has, in fact, become both a method of property tenure and a means of organizing economic life. Grown to tremendous proportions, there may be said to have evolved a 'corporate system'—as there once was a feudal system—which has attracted to itself a combination of attributes and powers, and has attained a degree of prominence entitling it to be dealt with as a major social institution.&nbsp;... We are examining this institution probably before it has attained its zenith. Spectacular as its rise has been, every indication seems to be that the system will move forward to proportions which stagger imagination today&nbsp;... They [management] have placed the community in a position to demand that the modern corporation serve not only the owners&nbsp;... but all society." p. 1.</ref> The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Jones |first1=C. |first2=M. |last2=Parker |year=2005 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7CSKX2HdnikC |title=For Business Ethics: A Critical Text |location=London |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-31135-9 |display-authors=etal |page=17 |access-date=December 2, 2017 |archive-date=April 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415090554/https://books.google.com/books?id=7CSKX2HdnikC |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases|last=Ferrell|first=O. C.|year=2015|publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-1-305-50084-6}}</ref> Business ethics also relates to unethical activities of interorganizational relationships, such as strategic alliances, buyer-supplier relationships, or joint ventures. Such unethical practices include, for instance, opportunistic behaviors, contract violations, and deceitful practices.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Carter|first=Craig R.|date=2000|title=Precursors of Unethical Behavior in Global Supplier Management|journal=Journal of Supply Chain Management|language=en|volume=36|issue=4|pages=45–56|doi=10.1111/j.1745-493X.2000.tb00069.x|issn=1745-493X}}</ref>
+[[Animal ethics]] examines how humans should treat other animals. An influential consideration in this field emphasizes the importance of [[animal welfare]] while arguing that humans should avoid or minimize the harm done to animals. There is wide agreement that it is wrong to [[Cruelty to animals|torture animals]] for fun. The situation is more complicated in cases where harm is inflicted on animals as a side effect of the pursuit of human interests. This happens, for example, during factory farming, when using animals as food, and for [[Animal testing|research experiments on animals]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Wilson|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=Lead Section, § 3c. Animal Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Holmes|2018|pp=317–319}} }}</ref> A key topic in animal ethics is the formulation of [[animal rights]]. Animal rights theorists assert that animals have a certain moral status and that humans have an obligation to respect this status when interacting with them.<ref>{{harvnb|Holmes|2018|pp=333–334}}</ref> Examples of suggested animal rights include the right to life, the right to be free from unnecessary suffering, and the right to natural behavior in a suitable environment.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Francione|2004|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ocbdJD2oUW0C&pg=PA115 115–116]}} | {{harvnb|Yount|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=R4jQ_upQZroC&pg=PA26 26]}} }}</ref>
-====Machine ethics====
-{{Main|Machine ethics}}
-In ''Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong'', Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that issues in [[machine ethics]] will likely drive advancement in understanding of human ethics by forcing us to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a platform for experimental investigation.<ref name=Wallach2008>{{cite book|first1=Wendell |last1=Wallach|first2=Colin|last2=Allen|year=2008|title=Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong|url=https://archive.org/details/moralmachinestea0000wall |url-access=registration |isbn=978-0-19-537404-9|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|location=US}}</ref> The effort to actually program a machine or artificial agent to behave as though instilled with a sense of ethics<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Knight|first=Will|title=This Program Can Give AI a Sense of Ethics – Sometimes|language=en-US|magazine=Wired|url=https://www.wired.com/story/program-give-ai-ethics-sometimes/|access-date=2021-10-30|issn=1059-1028|archive-date=October 30, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211030090254/https://www.wired.com/story/program-give-ai-ethics-sometimes/|url-status=live}}</ref> requires new specificity in our normative theories, especially regarding aspects customarily considered common-sense. For example, machines, unlike humans, can support a wide selection of [[List of machine learning algorithms|learning algorithms]], and controversy has arisen over the relative ethical merits of these options. This may reopen classic debates of normative ethics framed in new (highly technical) terms.
+[[Environmental ethics]] deals with moral problems relating to the natural environment including animals, plants, [[natural resource]]s, and [[ecosystem]]s. In its widest sense, it also covers the whole [[biosphere]] and the [[cosmos]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=§ 3d. Environmental Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Sandler|1998|pp=105–106}} | {{harvnb|Brennan|Lo|2022|loc=Lead Section}} }}</ref> In the domain of [[agriculture]], this concerns questions like under what circumstances it is acceptable to clear the vegetation of an area to use it for farming and the implications of using [[genetically modified crops]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Brennan|Lo|2022|loc=§ 1. Introduction: The Challenge of Environmental Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=§ 3d. Environmental Ethics}} }}</ref> On a wider scale, environmental ethics addresses the problem of [[global warming]] and how people are responsible for this both on an individual and a [[Collective responsibility|collective level]]. Environmental ethicists often promote [[Sustainability|sustainable practices]] and policies directed at protecting and conserving ecosystems and [[biodiversity]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gordon|loc=§ 3d. Environmental Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Cochrane|loc=§ 2. Radical Ecology}} | {{harvnb|Smith|2018|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=LFBVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36 36]}} }}</ref>
-====Military ethics====
-{{See also|Geneva Conventions|Nuremberg Principles}}
-Military ethics is concerned with questions regarding the application of force and the ethos of the soldier and is often understood as applied professional ethics.<ref>{{cite news |last2=Syse|first2=Henrik|last1=Cook|first1=Martin L.|title=What Should We Mean by 'Military Ethics'?|journal=Journal of Military Ethics|volume=9|issue=2|year=2010|page=122}}</ref> [[Just war theory]] is generally seen to set the background terms of military ethics. However, individual countries and traditions have different fields of attention.<ref>{{cite book|first=Emmanuel|last=Goffi|author-link=Emmanuel Goffi|year=2011|title=Les Armée Françaises Face à la Morale|trans-title=The French Army Facing Morale|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VpyjGdEsCA4C|language=fr|location=France|publisher=L'Harmattan|isbn=978-2-296-54249-5|access-date=January 8, 2016|archive-date=April 30, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430093330/https://books.google.com/books?id=VpyjGdEsCA4C|url-status=live}}</ref>
+=== Business and professional ethics ===
-Military ethics involves multiple subareas, including the following among others:
+{{main|Business ethics|Professional ethics}}
-# what, if any, should be the laws of war?
+Business ethics examines the moral implications of business conduct and investigates how ethical principles apply to corporations and organizations.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Rendtorff|1998|pp=365–366}} | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 2. Business Ethics}} }}</ref> A key topic is [[corporate social responsibility]], which is the responsibility of corporations to act in a manner that benefits society at large. Corporate social responsibility is a complex issue since many stakeholders are directly and indirectly involved in corporate decisions, such as the [[CEO]], the [[board of directors]], and the [[shareholders]]. A closely related topic concerns the question of whether corporations themselves, and not just their stakeholders, have moral agency.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dueñas|Lucia|Rosario|Mauro|2018|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=oPBJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR16 xv–xvi]}} | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 2. Business Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Rendtorff|1998|pp=365–366}} }}</ref> Business ethics further examines the role of truthfulness, honesty, and fairness in business practices as well as the moral implications of [[bribery]], [[conflict of interest]], protection of investors and consumers, [[worker's rights]], [[ethical leadership]], and corporate [[philanthropy]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Rendtorff|1998|pp=365–366}} | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 2. Business Ethics}} }}</ref>
-# justification for the initiation of military force.
-# decisions about who may be targeted in warfare.
-# decisions on choice of weaponry, and what collateral effects such weaponry may have.
-# standards for handling military prisoners.
-# methods of dealing with violations of the laws of war.
+Professional ethics is a closely related field that studies ethical principles applying to members of a specific [[profession]], like [[engineer]]s, [[medical doctor]]s, [[lawyer]]s, and [[teacher]]s. It is a diverse field since different professions often have different responsibilities.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Airaksinen|1998|p=}} | {{harvnb|Dittmer|loc=§ 5. Professional Ethics}} }}</ref> Principles applying to many professions include that the professional has the required expertise for the intended work and that they have personal integrity and are trustworthy. Further principles are to serve the interest of their target group, follow [[client confidentiality]], and respect and uphold the client's rights, such as informed consent.<ref>{{harvnb|Airaksinen|1998|pp=617–620}}</ref> More precise requirements often vary between professions. A cornerstone of [[engineering ethics]] is to protect the public's safety, health, and wellbeing.<ref>{{harvnb|Catalano|2022|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bYhyEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA17 17]}}</ref> [[Legal ethics]] emphasizes the importance of respect for justice, personal integrity, and confidentiality.<ref>{{harvnb|Parker|Evans|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-3dVoptUyrwC&pg=PA22 22–23]}}</ref> Key factors in [[journalism ethics]] include accuracy, truthfulness, independence, and [[impartiality]] as well as proper [[Attribution (journalism)|attribution]] to avoid [[plagiarism]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Medvecky|Leach|2019|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=NpO7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35 35]}} | {{harvnb|Mentan|2022|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OwbOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA280 280]}} | {{harvnb|Patching|Hirst|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FFclAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA69 69]}} }}</ref>
-====Political ethics====
-{{main|Political ethics}}
-Political ethics (also known as political morality or public ethics) is the practice of making moral judgements about political action and political agents.<ref>Thompson, Dennis F. "Political Ethics". ''[[International Encyclopedia of Ethics]]'', ed. Hugh LaFollette (Blackwell Publishing, 2012).</ref>
-====Public sector ethics====
+=== Others ===
+Many other fields of applied ethics are discussed in the academic literature. [[Communication ethics]] covers moral principles in relation to [[Communication|communicative conduct]]. Two key issues in it are [[freedom of speech]] and speech responsibility. Freedom of speech concerns the ability to articulate one's opinions and ideas without the threats of punishment and censorship. Speech responsibility is about being accountable for the consequences of communicative action and inaction.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Kvalnes|2023|pp=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-28971-2_12 101, 105]}} | {{harvnb|Christians|2005}} }}</ref> A closely related field is [[information ethics]], which focuses on the moral implications of creating, controlling, disseminating, and using [[information]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|ten Have|Patrão Neves|2021|p=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-54161-3_310 633]}} | {{harvnb|Elrod|Smith|2005}} }}</ref>
-{{main|Public sector ethics}}
-Public sector ethics is a set of principles that guide public officials in their service to their constituents, including their decision-making on behalf of their constituents. Fundamental to the concept of public sector ethics is the notion that decisions and actions are based on what best serves the public's interests, as opposed to the official's personal interests (including financial interests) or self-serving political interests.<ref>See, for example, work of Institute for Local Government, at [http://www.ca-ilg.org/trust www.ca-ilg.org/trust] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111001161254/http://www.ca-ilg.org/trust |date=October 1, 2011 }}.</ref>
+[[File:Little boy.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of a nuclear weapon|[[Nuclear ethics]] address the moral implications of nuclear technology, such as [[atom bomb]]s.]]
-====Publication ethics====
-Publication ethics is the set of principles that guide the writing and publishing process for all professional publications. To follow these principles, authors must verify that the publication does not contain [[plagiarism]] or [[publication bias]].<ref name="Publication ethics">{{cite journal|last1=Morton|first1=Neil|title=Publication ethics|journal=Pediatric Anesthesia|date=October 2009|volume=19|issue=10|pages=1011–1013|doi=10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03086.x|pmid=19619189|s2cid=45641680|url=http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/40928/3/40928.pdf|doi-access=free|access-date=October 14, 2019|archive-date=July 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180722001513/http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/40928/3/40928.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> As a way to avoid misconduct in research these principles can also apply to experiments that are referenced or analyzed in publications by ensuring the data is recorded honestly and accurately.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wager|first1=E.|last2=Fiack|first2=S.|last3=Graf|first3=C.|last4=Robinson|first4=A.|last5=Rowlands|first5=I.|title=Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics|date=31 March 2009|volume=35|issue=6|pages=348–353|url=http://jme.bmj.com/content/35/6/348.short|doi=10.1136/jme.2008.028324|pmid=19482976|doi-access=free|access-date=April 30, 2015|archive-date=December 23, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151223094744/http://jme.bmj.com/content/35/6/348.short|url-status=live}}</ref>
+The [[ethics of technology]] has implications for both communication ethics and information ethics in regard to [[Communication technology|communication]] and [[Information technology|information technologies]]. In its widest sense, it examines the moral issues associated with any artifacts created and used for instrumental means, from simple artifacts like spears to high-tech computers and [[nanotechnology]].<ref>{{harvnb|Braunack-Mayer|Street|Palmer|1998|pp=321–322}}</ref> Central topics in the ethics of technology include the risks associated with creating new technologies, their responsible use, and questions surrounding the issue of human enhancement through technological means, such as [[Prosthesis|prosthetic limbs]], [[performance-enhancing drugs]], and [[Human genetic enhancement|genetic enhancement]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Braunack-Mayer|Street|Palmer|1998|pp=323–326}} | {{harvnb|Robson|Tsou|2023|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=3gumEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT16 16–17]}} }}</ref> Important subfields include [[computer ethics]], [[ethics of artificial intelligence]], [[machine ethics]], [[Ethics of nanotechnologies|ethics of nanotechnology]], and [[nuclear ethics]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Tzafestas|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=EdpECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 2]}} | {{harvnb|Mitcham|2022|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=0uF-EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 101]}} }}</ref>
-Plagiarism is the failure to give credit to another author's work or ideas, when it is used in the publication.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Scollon|first1=Ron|title=Plagiarism|journal=Journal of Linguistic Anthropology|date=June 1999|volume=9|pages=188–190|jstor=43102462|doi=10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.188|issue=1–2|s2cid=214832669}}</ref> It is the obligation of the editor of the journal to ensure the article does not contain any plagiarism before it is published.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wager|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Williams|first2=Peter|title=Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics|date=September 2011|volume=37|issue=9|pages=567–570|jstor=23034717|doi=10.1136/jme.2010.040964|pmid=21486985|doi-access=free}}</ref> If a publication that has already been published is proven to contain plagiarism, the editor of the journal can retract the article.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sanjeev|first1=Handa|title=Plagiarism and publication ethics: Dos and don'ts|journal=Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology|date=2008|volume=74|issue=4|pages=301–303|doi=10.4103/0378-6323.42882|pmid=18797047|doi-access=free}}</ref> Another critical publication ethics issue pertains to citation plagiarism when researchers copy and paste citation entries from other published works without reading the original source.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Serenko |first1=A. |last2=Dumay |first2=J. |last3=Hsiao |first3=P-C.K. |last4=Choo |first4=C.W. |date=2021 |title=Do They Practice What They Preach? The Presence of Problematic Citations in Business Ethics Research |url=http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Do_They_Practice.pdf |journal=Journal of Documentation |volume=77 |issue=6 |pages=1304–1320 |doi=10.1108/JD-01-2021-0018 |s2cid=237823862 |access-date=February 16, 2022 |archive-date=October 23, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211023193000/http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Do_They_Practice.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
+{{anchor|Military ethics}}
-Publication bias occurs when the publication is one-sided or "[[prejudiced]] against results".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sigelman|first1=Lee|title=Publication Bias Reconsidered|journal=Political Analysis|date=2000|volume=8|issue=2|pages=201–210|jstor=25791607|doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029813}}</ref> In best practice, an author should try to include information from all parties involved, or affected by the topic. If an author is prejudiced against certain results, than it can "lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Peters|first1=Jamie L.|last2=Sutton|first2=Alex J.|last3=Jones|first3=David R.|last4=Abrams|first4=Keith R.|last5=Rushton|first5=Lesley|last6=Moreno|first6=Santiago G.|title=Assessing publication bias in meta-analysis in the presence of between-study heterogeneity|journal=Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society)|date=July 2010|volume=173|issue=3|pages=575–591|doi=10.1111/j.1467-985x.2009.00629.x| s2cid=63959157 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
+The [[ethics of war]] investigates moral problems in relation to war and violent conflicts. According to just war theory, waging war is morally justified if it fulfills certain conditions. They are commonly divided into requirements concerning the [[Jus ad bellum|cause to initiate violent activities]], such as self-defense, and the [[Jus in bello|way those violent activities are conducted]], such as [[Proportionality (law)#International humanitarian law|avoiding excessive harm to civilians]] in the pursuit of [[legitimate military target]]s.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Frowe|2021|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Lazar|2020|loc=Lead Section, § 3. Jus ad Bellum, § 4. Jus in Bello}} | {{harvnb|Sorabji|Rodin|2007|pp=2–3}} }}</ref> '''[[Military ethics]]''' is a closely related field that is interested in the conduct of [[military personnel]]. It governs questions of the circumstances under which they are permitted to kill enemies, destroy infrastructure, and put the lives of their own troops at risk.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Wolfendale|2007|pp=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230592803_4 47–78]}} | {{harvnb|Baumann|2007|pp=34–35}} }}</ref> Additional topics are recruitment, training, and discharge of military personnel as well as the procurement of military equipment.<ref>{{harvnb|Fotion|1998|pp=121, 123–124, 126}}</ref>
+Further fields of applied ethics include [[political ethics]], which examines the moral dimensions of political decisions,<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hall|Sabl|2022|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=4bhiEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 1–2]}} | {{harvnb|Gay|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VKprw2w_IJQC&pg=PA189 189]}} }}</ref> educational ethics, which covers ethical issues related to proper teaching practices,<ref>{{harvnb|Maxwell|2023|pp=[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-22767-8_1323 609–610]}}</ref> and [[sexual ethics]], which addresses the moral implications of [[Human sexual activity|sexual behavior]].<ref>{{harvnb|Boonin|2022|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=8L1dEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 1]}}</ref>
-Misconduct in research can occur when an experimenter falsifies results.<ref name="j25175246">{{cite journal|last1=Smith|first1=Richard|title=Misconduct in Research: Editors Respond: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Is Formed|journal=British Medical Journal|date=July 26, 1997|volume=315|issue=7102|pages=201–202|jstor=25175246|doi=10.1136/bmj.315.7102.201|pmc=2127155|pmid=9253258}}</ref> Falsely recorded information occurs when the researcher "fakes" information or data, which was not used when conducting the actual experiment.<ref name="j25175246"/> By faking the data, the researcher can alter the results from the experiment to better fit the hypothesis they originally predicted. When conducting medical research, it is important to honor the healthcare rights of a patient by protecting their [[anonymity]] in the publication.<ref name="Publication ethics"/>
-''Respect for autonomy'' is the principle that decision-making should allow individuals to be autonomous; they should be able to make decisions that apply to their own lives. This means that individuals should have control of their lives.
-''Justice'' is the principle that decision-makers must focus on actions that are fair to those affected. Ethical decisions need to be consistent with the ethical theory. There are cases where the management has made decisions that seem to be unfair to the employees, shareholders, and other stakeholders (Solomon, 1992, pp49). Such decisions are unethical.
-====Relational ethics====
-Relational ethics is related to an [[ethics of care]].<ref name="GILLIGAN2009">{{cite book|author=Carol Gilligan|title=In a Different Voice|year= 2009|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-03761-8}}</ref>{{rp|62–63}} They are used in qualitative research, especially ethnography and autoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value and respect the connection between themselves and the people they study, and "...between researchers and the communities in which they live and work". (Ellis, 2007, p.&nbsp;4).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Ellis | first1 = C | year = 2007 | title = Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others | journal = Qualitative Inquiry | volume = 13 | pages = 3–29 | doi=10.1177/1077800406294947| citeseerx = 10.1.1.574.7450 | s2cid = 143995976 }}</ref> Relational ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues such as conducting research on intimate others that have died and developing friendships with their participants.<ref>Ellis, C. (1986). ''Fisher folk. Two communities on Chesapeake Bay.'' Lexington: [[University Press of Kentucky]].</ref><ref>Ellis, C. (1995).''Final negotiations: A story of love, loss, and chronic illness.'' Philadelphia: [[Temple University Press]].</ref> Relational ethics in close personal relationships form a central concept of [[Ivan Böszörményi-Nagy#Contextual therapy|contextual therapy]].
-====Ethics of nanotechnologies====
-{{Main|Ethics of nanotechnologies}}
-Ethics of nanotechnology is the study of the ethical issues emerging from advances in nanotechnology.
-====Ethics of quantification====
-{{Main|Ethics of quantification}}
-Ethics of quantification is the study of the ethical issues associated to different forms of visible or invisible forms of quantification.
-====Animal ethics====
-{{Main|Animal ethics}}
-Animal ethics is a term used in academia to describe human-animal relationships and how animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes [[animal rights]], [[animal welfare]], [[animal law]], [[speciesism]], [[animal cognition]], [[wildlife conservation]], the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman [[personhood]], [[Anthropocentrism|human exceptionalism]], the history of animal use, and theories of [[justice]].
-====Ethics of technology====
-{{Main|Ethics of technology}}
-Ethics of technology is a sub-field of ethics addressing the ethical questions specific to the [[technological evolution|Technology Age]]. Some prominent works of [[philosopher]] [[Hans Jonas]] are devoted to ethics of technology. The subject has also been explored, following the work of [[Mario Bunge]], under the term technoethics.
 ==Moral psychology==
@@ Line 400: / Line 362: @@
 * {{cite book |last1=Lazari-Radek |first1=Katarzyna de |last2=Singer |first2=Peter |chapter=Parfit on Objectivity and 'the Profoundest Problem of Ethics' |editor-last1=Singer |editor-first1=Peter |title=Does Anything Really Matter?: Essays on Parfit on Objectivity |date=12 January 2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-108439-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8jTjDQAAQBAJ |language=en}}
 * {{cite book |last1=McDonald |first1=Fritz J. |editor-last1=Makowski |editor-first1=Piotr |title=Praxiology and the Reasons for Action |date=5 July 2017 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-49716-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zCAxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT95 |language=en |chapter=4. Beyond Objectivism and Subjectivism}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Robson |first1=Gregory J. |last2=Tsou |first2=Jonathan Y. |title=Technology Ethics: A Philosophical Introduction and Readings |date=31 January 2023 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-000-83023-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3gumEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT16 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Elrod |first1=Edwin M. |last2=Smith |first2=Martha M. |editor1-last=Mitcham |editor1-first=Carl |title=Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics. 3: L - R |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson Gale |location=Detroit, Mich. Munich |isbn=978-0028658346 |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/information-ethics |chapter=Information Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Christians |first1=Clifford G. |editor1-last=Mitcham |editor1-first=Carl |title=Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics. 3: L - R |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson Gale |location=Detroit, Mich. Munich |isbn=978-0028658346 |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/communication-ethics |chapter=Communication Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Hall |first1=Edward |last2=Sabl |first2=Andrew |editor1-last=Hall |editor1-first=Edward |editor2-last=Sabl |editor2-first=Andrew |title=Political Ethics: A Handbook |date=13 September 2022 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-23131-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4bhiEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Gay |first1=William C. |editor1-last=Boersema |editor1-first=David |editor2-last=Brown |editor2-first=Katy Gray |title=Spiritual and Political Dimensions of Nonviolence and Peace |date=2006 |publisher=Rodopi |isbn=978-90-420-2061-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VKprw2w_IJQC&pg=PA189 |language=en |chapter=A Normative Framework for Addressing Peace and Related Global Issues}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Boonin |first1=David |editor1-last=Boonin |editor1-first=David |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Sexual Ethics |date=8 February 2022 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-87786-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8L1dEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en |chapter=1. Introduction: Sex, Ethics, and Philosophy}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Maxwell |first1=Bruce |editor1-last=Poff |editor1-first=Deborah C. |editor2-last=Michalos |editor2-first=Alex C. |title=Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics |date=2023 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-030-22767-8 |url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-22767-8_1323 |language=en |chapter=Educational Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Sorabji |first1=Richard |last2=Rodin |first2=David |editor1-last=Sorabji |editor1-first=Richard |editor2-last=Rodin |editor2-first=David |title=The Ethics of War: Shared Problems in Different Traditions |date=2007 |publisher=Ashgate Publishing |location=Aldershot |isbn=9780754654483 |edition=Repr |chapter=Introduction}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Lazar |first1=Seth |title=War |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=25 December 2023 |date=2020}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Frowe |first1=Helen |title=The ethics of war |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/the-ethics-of-war/v-1 |website=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=25 December 2023 |language=en |date=2021}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Mitcham |first1=Carl |title=Thinking through Technology: The Path between Engineering and Philosophy |date=2 August 2022 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-82539-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0uF-EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 |language=en}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Almond |first1=Brenda |title=Applied ethics |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/applied-ethics/v-1 |website=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=23 December 2023 |language=en |date=1998 |doi=10.4324/9780415249126-L005-1}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Dittmer |first1=Joel |title=Ethics, Applied |url=https://iep.utm.edu/applied-ethics/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=23 December 2023}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Petersen |first1=Thomas Søbirk |last2=Ryberg |first2=Jesper |title=Applied Ethics |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0006.xml |website=Oxford Bibliographies |access-date=23 December 2023 |language=en |date=2022}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Winkler |first1=E. R. |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123739322000168 |chapter=Applied Ethics, Overview}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Braunack-Mayer |first1=A. J. |last2=Street |first2=J. M. |last3=Palmer |first3=N. |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |chapter=Technology, Ethics of: Overview}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Airaksinen |first1=T. |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |chapter=Professional Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Fotion |first1=N. |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |chapter=Military Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Rendtorff |first1=J. D. |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |chapter=Business Ethics, Overview}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Sandler |first1=R. |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |chapter=Environmental Ethics, Overview}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Delden |first1=J. J. M. van  |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |chapter=Euthanasia (Physician-Assisted Suicide)}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Gillon |first1=R. |editor1-last=Chadwick |editor1-first=Ruth |title=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics |date=1 January 1998 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 |edition=2 |chapter=Bioethics, Overview}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Beaucham |first1=Tom L. |editor-last2=Wellman |editor-first2=Christopher Heath |editor1-last=Frey |editor1-first=R. G. |title=A Companion to Applied Ethics |date=2003 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-4051-7190-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qws8gf4f4iUC |language=en |chapter=The Nature of Applied Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Darwall |first1=Stephen L. |editor-last2=Wellman |editor-first2=Christopher Heath |editor1-last=Frey |editor1-first=R. G. |title=A Companion to Applied Ethics |date=2003 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-4051-7190-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qws8gf4f4iUC |language=en |chapter=Theories of Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Ryberg |first1=Jesper |title=Applied Ethics: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide |date=1 June 2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press, USA |isbn=978-0-19-980865-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZsCRosM367gC&pg=PA3 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Meynell |first1=Letitia |last2=Paron |first2=Clarisse |title=Applied Ethics Primer |date=16 June 2023 |publisher=Broadview Press |isbn=978-1-77048-899-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VrTFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Chakraborti |first1=Chhanda |title=Introduction to Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Contemporary Issues |date=17 September 2023 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-981-99-0707-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f5jXEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA620 |language=en}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Gordon |first1=John-Stewart |title=Bioethics |url=https://iep.utm.edu/bioethics/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=23 December 2023}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Wilson |first1=Scott D. |title=Animals and Ethics |url=https://iep.utm.edu/animals-and-ethics/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=24 December 2023}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Holmes |first1=Robert L. |title=Introduction to applied ethics |date=2018 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |location=London Oxford New York New Delhi Sydney |isbn=978-1-3500-2980-4}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Francione |first1=Gary L. |editor1-last=Sunstein |editor1-first=Cass R. |editor2-last=Nussbaum |editor2-first=Martha C. |title=Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions |date=1 April 2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-803473-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ocbdJD2oUW0C&pg=PA115 |language=en |chapter=Animals - Property or Persons?}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Yount |first1=Lisa |title=Animal Rights |date=2007 |publisher=Infobase Publishing |isbn=978-1-4381-3063-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R4jQ_upQZroC&pg=PA26 |language=en}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Brennan |first1=Andrew |last2=Lo |first2=Norva Y. S. |title=Environmental Ethics |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=24 December 2023 |date=2022}}
+* {{cite web |last1=Cochrane |first1=Alasdair |title=Environmental Ethics |url=https://iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=24 December 2023}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Kimberly K. |title=Exploring Environmental Ethics: An Introduction |date=10 April 2018 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-319-77395-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LFBVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Dueñas |first1=María del Pilar Muñoz |last2=Lucia |first2=Aiello |last3=Rosario |first3=Cabrita |last4=Mauro |first4=Gatti |title=Corporate Social Responsibility for Valorization of Cultural Organizations |date=23 February 2018 |publisher=IGI Global |isbn=978-1-5225-3552-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oPBJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR16 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Catalano |first1=George D. |title=Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth, Second Edition |date=1 June 2022 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-031-02115-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bYhyEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA17 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Parker |first1=Christine |last2=Evans |first2=Adrian |title=Inside Lawyers' Ethics |date=22 February 2007 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-139-46128-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-3dVoptUyrwC&pg=PA22 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Medvecky |first1=Fabien |last2=Leach |first2=Joan |title=An Ethics of Science Communication |date=1 November 2019 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-32116-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NpO7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Mentan |first1=Tatah |title=Understanding Contemporary Journalism: A Handbook of Principles and Practice |date=3 January 2022 |publisher=African Books Collective |isbn=978-9956-552-91-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OwbOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA280 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Patching |first1=Roger |last2=Hirst |first2=Martin |title=Journalism Ethics: Arguments and cases for the twenty-first century |date=20 November 2013 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-96374-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FFclAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA69 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Kvalnes |first1=Øyvind |title=Communication Climate at Work: Fostering Friendly Friction in Organisations |date=2023 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-031-28971-2 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-28971-2_12 |language=en |chapter=Communication Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=ten Have |first1=Henk |last2=Patrão Neves |first2=Maria do Céu |title=Dictionary of Global Bioethics |date=2021 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-030-54161-3 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-54161-3_310 |language=en |chapter=Information Ethics}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Tzafestas |first1=Spyros G. |title=Roboethics: A Navigating Overview |date=27 July 2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-319-21714-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EdpECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 |language=en}}
+* {{cite book |last1=Wolfendale |first1=Jessica |title=Torture and the Military Profession |date=2007 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-0-230-59280-3 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230592803_4 |language=en |chapter=Professional Ethics and the Military}}
+* {{cite journal |last1=Baumann |first1=Dieter |title=Military Ethics: A Task for Armies |journal=Military Medicine |date=December 2007 |volume=172 |issue=Supplement 2 |doi=10.7205/MILMED.173.Supplement_2.34}}
 {{refend}}

v t e Ethics
Normative	Consequentialism Deontology Care Particularism Pragmatic Role Suffering-focused Utilitarianism Virtue
Applied	Animal Artificial intelligence Bio Business Discourse Engineering Environmental Legal Machine Meat eating Media Medical Nursing Professional Sexual Technology Terraforming Uncertain sentience
Meta	Absolutism Axiology Cognitivism Realism Naturalism Non-naturalism Subjectivism Ideal observer theory Divine command theory Constructivism Euthyphro dilemma Intuitionism Nihilism Non-cognitivism Emotivism Expressivism Quasi-realism Universal prescriptivism Rationalism Relativism Skepticism Universalism Value monism – Value pluralism
Schools	Buddhist Christian Confucian Epicurean Existentialist Feminist Islamic Jewish Kantian Rousseauian Stoic Tao
Concepts	Authority Autonomy Common sense Compassion Conscience Consent Culture of life Dignity Double standard Duty Equality Etiquette Eudaimonia Family values Fidelity Free will Good and evil Good Evil Problem of evil Happiness Honour Ideal Immorality Justice Liberty Loyalty Moral courage Moral hierarchy Moral imperative Morality Norm Political freedom Precept Rights Self-discipline Suffering Stewardship Sympathy Theodicy Trust Value Intrinsic Japan Western Vice Virtue Vow Wrong
Ethicists	Laozi Socrates Plato Aristotle Diogenes Valluvar Cicero Confucius Augustine Mencius Mozi Xunzi Aquinas Spinoza Hume Kant Hegel Schopenhauer Bentham Mill Kierkegaard Sidgwick Nietzsche Moore Barth Tillich Bonhoeffer Foot Rawls Dewey Williams Mackie Anscombe Frankena MacIntyre Hare Singer Parfit Nagel Adams Taylor Azurmendi Korsgaard Nussbaum
Works	Nicomachean Ethics (c. 322 BC) Ethics (Spinoza) (1677) Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (1726) A Treatise of Human Nature (1740) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) Critique of Practical Reason (1788) Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820) Either/Or (1843) Utilitarianism (1861) The Methods of Ethics (1784) On the Genealogy of Morality (1887) Principia Ethica (1903) A Theory of Justice (1971) Animal Liberation (1975) Practical Ethics (1979) After Virtue (1981) Reasons and Persons (1984)
Related	Axiology Casuistry Descriptive ethics Ethics in religion Evolutionary ethics History of ethics Ideology Moral psychology Philosophy of law Political philosophy Population ethics Secular ethics Social philosophy Index
Category