Notice: تابع WP_Block_Type_Registry::register به طورنادرست فراخوانی شد. نامهای نوع بلوک نباید حروف بزرگ داشته باشند. لطفاً برای اطلاعات بیشتر، اشکال زدایی در وردپرس را مشاهده کنید. (این پیام در نگارش 5.0.0 افزوده شده است.) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5313
Warning: Use of undefined constant TDC_PATH_LEGACY - assumed 'TDC_PATH_LEGACY' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/td-composer/td-composer.php on line 109
Warning: Use of undefined constant TDSP_THEME_PATH - assumed 'TDSP_THEME_PATH' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/td-composer/td-composer.php on line 113 بایگانیهای 9780198239161 - خانه اخلاق پژوهان جوان Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-ulike/inc/general-functions.php on line 807
When Did I Begin? investigates the theoretical, moral and biological issues surrounding the debate over the beginning of human life. With the continuing controversy over the use of in vitro fertilization techniques and experimentation with human embryos, these issues have been forced into the arena of public debate. The answer to the question, āWhen did I begin?ā draws on both scientific evidence, and on the philosophical concepts of the presence of the human individaul. As a leading theologian and moral philosopher, thoroughly conversant with modern embryology, Norman Ford, a Salesian priest, is well qualified to bridge the gap between the biological and philosophical point of view. Dr Ford argues that a human individual could not begin before definitive individuation occurs with the appearance of the primative streak about two weeks after fertilisation. While he does not specifically address any moral issues regarding the treatment of human embryos, the author views reading of this book as an essential prerequisite for such moral considerations. The implications of Dr Fordās answer to the question posed in the title will be crucially important for fully evaluating such problems as embryo experimentation and contraception, for a range of readers from embryologists and physicians to moral philosophers and theologians. The book has already stimulated considerable interest and debate, and is now available in paperback for the first time.
Producer: Heron & CraneBreakthroughs in genetics present us with a promise and a predicament. The promise is that we will soon be able to treat and prevent a host of debilitating diseases. The predicament is that our newfound genetic knowledge may enable us to manipulate our nature–to enhance our genetic traits and those of our children. Although most people find at least some forms of genetic engineering disquieting, it is not easy to articulate why. What is wrong with re-engineering our nature?The Case against Perfection explores these and other moral quandaries connected with the quest to perfect ourselves and our children. Michael Sandel argues that the pursuit of perfection is flawed for reasons that go beyond safety and fairness. The drive to enhance human nature through genetic technologies is objectionable because it represents a bid for mastery and dominion that fails to appreciate the gifted character of human powers and achievements. Carrying us beyond familiar terms of political discourse, this book contends that the genetic revolution will change the way philosophers discuss ethics and will force spiritual questions back onto the political agenda.In order to grapple with the ethics of enhancement, we need to confront questions largely lost from view in the modern world. Since these questions verge on theology, modern philosophers and political theorists tend to shrink from them. But our new powers of biotechnology make these questions unavoidable. Addressing them is the task of this book, by one of America’s preeminent moral and political thinkers.
The dominant view throughout history has been that mere participation in an unjust war is not wrong. Soldiers are not to blame for the unjustness of the military actions into which their leaders throw them. The principles governing what is permissible in war apply equally to any combatants.Jeff McMahan argues powerfully that this dominant view must be overturned. Combatants who fight for an unjust cause are acting wrongly and are themselves morally responsible for their own wrongdoings. If a soldier fighting for an unjust cause kills an opposing soldier, he is killing an innocentperson and is morally responsible for that killing.This is a highly controversial view, which threatens to undermine the moral standing of military personnel in many contexts around the world today. McMahan shows that the view is nevertheless one which common sense can see to be demanded by our basic moral intuitions. We must rethink our attitudesto the moral role of the individual in war.
ما از اخلاق چه انتظاری داریم؟ این سوال شاید تاحدودی برای عموم مردم و یا متخصصان این رشته قابل پاسخ باشد؛ اینکه خوب بودن را به ما بیاموزد و در تنظیم روابط فردی م...
جشن کتاب تهران به ایستگاه سی و یکم رسیده است. حال و احوال نشر کتاب خوب نیست و باید فرهنگدوستان را به خرید و هدیه دادن کتاب ترغیب نمود. خانه اخلاقپژوهان جوان ب...
بنیاد کتابهای اخلاق اسلامی عمدتا پالایش جان از آلودگیها و آراستن آن به زیباییها است. اندیشه محوری این قبیل کتابها آن است که انسان فعلی آنی نیست که باید باشد...
-
0 Comments