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 K5301 .O87 2005 - 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
In “The Social Authority of Reason, Philip J. Rossi, SJ argues that the current cultural milieu of globalization is strikingly reflective of the human condition appraised by kant, in which mutual social interaction for human good is hamstrung by our contentious “unsociable sociability.” He situates the paradoxical nature of contemporary society–“its opportunities for deepening the bonds of our common human mutuality along with its potential for enlarging the fissures that arise from our human differences–“in the context of Kant’s notion of radical evil. As a corrective, Rossi proposes that we draw upon the social charcater of Kant’s critique of reason, which offers a communal trajectory for human moral effort and action. This trajectory still has power to open the path to what Kant called “the highest political good”–“lasting peace among nations.
Mark Graber looks at the history of abortion law in action to argue that the only defensible, constitutional approach to the issue is to afford all women equal choice – abortion should remain legal or bans should be strictly enforced. Steering away from metaphysical critiques of privacy, Graber compares the philosophical, constitutional, and democratic merits of the two systems of abortion regulation witnessed in the twentieth-century: pre-Roe v. Wade statutory prohibitions on abortion and Roe’s ban on significant state interference with the market for safe abortion services. He demonstrates that before Roe, pro-life measures were selectively and erratically administered, thereby subverting our constitutional commitment to equal justice. Claiming that these measures would be similarly administered if reinstated, the author seeks to increase support for keeping abortion legal, even among those who have reservations about its morality. Abortion should remain legal, Graber argues, because statutory bans on abortion have a history of being enforced in ways that intentionally discriminate against poor persons and persons of color. In the years before Roe, the same law enforcement officials who routinely ignored and sometimes assisted those physicians seeking to terminate pregnancies for their private patients too often prevented competent abortionists from offering the same services to the general public. This double standard violated the fundamental human and constitutional right of equal justice under law, a right that has powerful roots in the American political tradition and that remains a major concern of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism David Enoch develops, argues for, and defends a strongly realist and objectivist view of ethics and normativity more broadly. This view–according to which there are perfectly objective, universal, moral and other normative truths that are not in any way reducible to other, natural truths–is familiar, but this book is the first in-detail development of the positive motivations for the view into reasonably precise arguments. And when the book turns defensive–defending Robust Realism against traditional objections–it mobilizes the original positive arguments for the view to help with fending off the objections.The main underlying motivation for Robust Realism developed in the book is that no other metaethical view can vindicate our taking morality seriously. The positive arguments developed here–the argument from the deliberative indispensability of normative truths, and the argument from the moral implications of metaethical objectivity (or its absence)–are thus arguments for Robust Realism that are sensitive to the underlying, pre-theoretical motivations for the view.
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