By Richard A. McCormick
Read or Download Ambiguity in Moral Choice PDF
Best ethics books
What's justice? Questions of justice are questions on what individuals are due, yet what that implies in perform is dependent upon context. reckoning on context, the formal query of what everyone is due is spoke back by means of rules of desolate tract, reciprocity, equality, or desire. Justice, therefore, is a constellation of components that express a level of integration and harmony, however the integrity of justice is restricted, in a fashion that's equivalent to the integrity of an area instead of that of a construction.
Within the Ethics of Immigration, Joseph Carens synthesizes a life of paintings to discover and light up the most urgent problems with our time. Immigration poses useful difficulties for western democracies and in addition demanding situations the ways that humans in democracies take into consideration citizenship and belonging, approximately rights and duties, and approximately freedom and equality.
During this cutting edge therapy of the ethics of warfare, Ryan P. Cumming brings classical assets of simply warfare conception into dialog with African American voices. the result's a brand new course in precisely warfare suggestion that demanding situations dominant interpretations of simply conflict conception via trying to the views of these at the underside of background and politics.
Additional resources for Ambiguity in Moral Choice
It is pre- Page 27 cisely this intention or purpose which unites the intermediate stages and makes the action human. For example, "the human action of surgical intervention . . " At this stage of his analysis Van der Poel makes two important points. First, not any material effect can be used to obtain a good result. There must be a proportionate reason which makes the occurrence of physical evil acceptable within the whole act. " But they are (I presume he would say, though he nowhere says it) disproportionate, not sufficient to render the evil caused acceptable.
This has happened, I believe, to Van der Poel. Speaking of self-defense, he says: "We do not weigh the independent value of the human life of the unlawful attacker against the independent value of the life of the person who legitimately defends himself against the attack. "42 Here Van der Poel is left dangling helplessly on his own petitio principii. For the precise point of his own criterion is not whether "this was the Page 34 only way to defend himself," but whether self-defense in such desperate circumstances is community-building or not.
The matter can be urged in another way. Suppose we are faced with a situation (suggested by Philippa Foot) with the following alternatives: an operation which saves the mother but kills the child, versus one that kills the mother but saves Page 51 the child. In either choice Grisez's use of double effect would seem to apply. That is, there is a single indivisible process one of whose aspects is good, one evil. And the act is life-saving. But unless one uses functional criteria (the "greater value" in some sense of the mother's or child's life) is there a proportionate reason for choosing mother over child, or child over mother?