Search results
Apr 1, 2022 · McDavid et al. (2019) distinguish two major approaches of ethical reasoning – the deontological approach and practical wisdom – and both are required, as they serve different purposes. Deontological ethics is ‘based on being able to identify and act on a set of unchanging ethical principles’ (McDavid et al., 2019). This is also called ...
- Login
McDavid et al. (2019) distinguish two major approaches of...
- Forgotten your password
We would like to show you a description here but the site...
- Login
ethically we think for some ethical purpose, from some ethical point of view, based on some ethical assumptions, leading to some ethical implications or consequences.). . . . . . . . .17–18 Language as a Guide to Ethical Reasoning. (Ethical reasoning requires an accurate understanding of universal ethical concepts and principles.
- 2MB
- 8
People also ask
Are moral understanding and moral knowledge related?
Should we think in terms of Truth or understanding?
Is knowledge more valuable than truth?
What are the theories of Truth in philosophy?
Moral understanding is a valuable epistemic and moral good. I argue that moral understanding is the ability to know right from wrong. I defend the account against challenges from nonreductionists, ...
- Paulina A. Sliwa
- 2017
This compilation is designed to introduce these significant ethical decision-making approaches to understand better how each of us might decide critical ethical issues and so that we can better understand how people and organizations have argued moral theory historically.
- The First Level: Basic Wisdom
- Self-Knowledge
- The Second Level: Reflective Wisdom
- Knowledge and Understanding
So, how should we organize the rich array of demands on wisdom, satisfying at the same time the usual epistemological desiderata? I propose that we take as our guide the two-level accounts in epistemology, above all the one of Sosa (e.g., Sosa, 2007) combining reliability on the first level with coherence on the second. The idea is that reliability...
Let me now pass to the central kind of knowledge at the basic level, namely self-knowledge. Lao-Tzu teaches us: “Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom.” Socrates would probably agree, and so would many of his followers. But why is self-knowledge important? Well, I should know myself in order to be able to predict how vario...
At the first level, the relevant cognitive and motivational elements are minimally reflective, in the sense of being made compatible with local, pressing concerns, so that the focus is not purely atomic, nor seriously holistic, but rather “molecular,” taking into account the nearest competitors only. So, phronesis-generated preferences already cont...
We should now place this proposal within the wider virtue-epistemological setting. So, why knowledge, and not just true belief? What about skepticism? There is a skeptical tradition, running from Academic skepticism in antiquity to Montaigne and his disciple (and adopted son) Charron, that claims that a skeptic, at least a moderate skeptic, can be ...
- Nenad Miščević
- vismiscevic@ceu.hu
- 2012
Our contemporary understanding of “truth” is closely aligned with the “correspondence theory of truth,” the idea that “what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are — to the facts.”1 But, how do we know what the facts are? How can you tell a lie from a truth?
May 6, 2021 · Understanding is the epistemic benefit we receive from idealizations, and understanding and truth can come apart. On this view, understanding (unlike knowledge) can therefore be “non-factive” (Elgin 2004, 2017; Potochnik 2017; cf. Sullivan & Khalifa 2019).
