Academic literature on the topic 'Normative ethics'

Purpose of the study: The present study mainly argues the limitations of normative ethics and analyzes the anthropocentrism in Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2312 based on the actions or duties of the characters. Methodology: The article used normative ethics as a methodology. Normative ethics is the study of ethical actions that has certain rules and regulations about how we ought to do and decide. So, this study has chosen a normative ethic that consists of three ethical theories Utilitarian approach, Kantian ethics and Virtue ethics to judge duties that are right and wrong. Main Findings: As a result, normative ethics compact with a one-dimensional approach. All three ethics deal with its own specific code of ethics. Utilitarianism has focused on good outcomes. Kantian ethics has paid attention to good rules with duty. Virtue ethics focused on the good people but all three theories have a strong common objective of focusing on only human beings (sentient entities) and omit other entities (plants and animals). So all normative ethics have certain limitations and do their duties without thinking about consequences and situations. In conclusion, this code of normative ethics has provoked as anthropocentric. In addition that Swan’s actions and the rational behavior made her miserably failed in Mercury through the construction of the biome and creation of quantum computers. So this cause, in the end, the space people want to move from space to earth to rebuild the biome. Applications of this study: The prudent study analyses the normative ethics in a detailed manner under the Utilitarian approach, Kantian ethics and Virtue ethics. These philosophical domains can be benefitted for researchers to practice and implement during the research process in Humanities and Social Sciences especially. Novelty/Originality of this study: The study analyzed the anthropocentric attitude of the character Swan in 2312 based on her actions or duties through the code of normative ethics (Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Virtue ethics).

Spinoza presents his ethics using a variety of terminologies. Propositions that are, or at least might be taken for, normative include only very few explicit guidelines for action. I will take this claim from Vp10s to be one such guideline:Vp10s: So that we may always have this rule of reason ready when it is needed, we should think and meditate often about common human wrongs and how and in what way they may best be driven away by nobility.

This paper discusses a challenge to normative ethics motivated by experimental philosophy. Experimental philosophers object to the perceived “armchair” or a priori nature of philosophy, claiming it should rather be empirical or naturalistic. The paper investigates the application of this claim to normative ethics. Dubbing the application of the experimental philosophers’ contention to normative ethics “the Armchair Claim,” I distinguish descriptive and normative versions of this challenge, and consider their merits as comments on the method of normative ethics (descriptive versions), and as comments on how normative ethics should be done (normative versions). Characterizing normative ethics as essentially involving the use of the method of reflective equilibrium, I show how the versions of the Armchair Claim that I distinguish either misconstrue normative ethics, or are committed to metaethical views that are controversial. To bring home the latter point, I contrast two meta-ethical positions, and show how, on one such view, naturalism, the descriptive version could be correct, whereas on another, intuitionism, it would be false. The normative version, in turn, is consistent with naturalism, but begs the question against the intuitionist since she argues that normative ethics cannot be empirical. The upshot is that a conclusive assessment of the Armchair Claim will have to await the resolution of disputed issues in meta-ethics. However, normative ethicists can get on with their work since reflective equilibrium is unaffected by such debates.

The task of this text is to locate Nietzsche?s ethics in the domain of normativity. Namely, this task assumes the determination of the normative concepts of Nietzsche?s ethics, the relations between them, and their relations with non-normative concepts, but, before all, an answer to the question about meaning of ethics in Nietzsche?s philosophy. In our discussion, for the sake of methodicity and accuracy, we are going to use the concepts and the conceptual distinctions of the philosophy of normativity, a contemporary discipline of ethics. The result of the discussion will be the proof of two theses: (i) Nietzsche?s ethics refers to a normative judgment about reasons to act; and (ii) according to it, normative or ethical concepts supervene on non-normative and non-ethical concepts.

AbstractThe present article sets out to defend the thesis that among the more or less familiar enemies or challenges an adequate theory of virtue has to cope with is another, less obvious one – virtue ethics itself. The project of establishing virtue ethics as a third paradigm of normative ethics at eye level with consequentialism and deontological approaches to ethics threatens to distort not just our ethical thinking but the theory of virtue itself. A theory of virtue that is able to meet the demands of a full-blown virtue ethics necessarily has to face three fundamental dilemmas and thus seems to fail as an adequate theory of virtue. And vice versa: An ontologically and normatively viable theory of virtue will be unsuited to provide a promising starting point for virtue ethics as the “third kid on the block” among the options of self-standing paradigms of normative ethics.

The aim of this study was to synthesize the concepts from empirical studies and analyze, compare and interrelate them with normative ethics. The International Council of Nurses (ICN) and the Health and Medical Service Act are normative ethics. Five concepts were used in the analysis; three from the grounded theory studies and two from the theoretical framework on normative ethics. A simultaneous concept analysis resulted in five outcomes: interconnectedness, interdependence, corroboratedness, completeness and good care are all related to the empirical perspective of the nurse’s interaction with the older patient, and the normative perspective, i.e. that found in ICN code and SFS law. Empirical ethics and normative ethics are intertwined according to the findings of this study. Normative ethics influence the nurse’s practical performance and could be supporting documents for nurses as professionals.

This thesis is an attempt to answer the following question: Do our moral commitments commit us to constraints on what meta-ethical theories we find attractive? In order to answer this question, I first demonstrate that meta-ethical theories can be criticised on moral grounds. I then argue that correctness conditions for moral claims imply the thesis of explanatory moral realism. I do not claim that this is an argument for the truth of explanatory moral realism. Rather, I claim that this is an argument that moral realism is a moral commitment. I then look at two objections to the claim that moral claims can have built in commitments to a meta-ethical theory that takes a stand on the issue of moral realism. The first of these is a set of arguments that Simon Blackburn gives for quasi-realism. The second objection is a set of arguments given by Ronald Dworkin that attack the presuppositions of debates about realism in meta-ethics.

This study explores the contemporary practice of Ethical and Socially Responsible Investment and concludes that it is based on an ad hoc construct of empirically derived principles, driven mainly by the commercial self-interest of large financial institutions and fund managers. It explores the relationship between investment and morality, to posit a background theory of investment ethics. The study then proposes a move away from the narrow focus of ethical investment to a broader concern for investment ethics. The study introduces the discipline of investment ethics and examines the criteria that form the basis of morality in investment decisions. The resultant theory is intended to be of practical significance in the business and investment domains and to assist potential investors to evaluate investment opportunities in the context of a consistent set of substantive normative ethical principles.

This study explores the contemporary practice of Ethical and Socially Responsible Investment and concludes that it is based on an ad hoc construct of empirically derived principles, driven mainly by the commercial self-interest of large financial institutions and fund managers. It explores the relationship between investment and morality, to posit a background theory of investment ethics. The study then proposes a move away from the narrow focus of ethical investment to a broader concern for investment ethics. The study introduces the discipline of investment ethics and examines the criteria that form the basis of morality in investment decisions. The resultant theory is intended to be of practical significance in the business and investment domains and to assist potential investors to evaluate investment opportunities in the context of a consistent set of substantive normative ethical principles.

Very often, we are unsure about what we ought to do. Under what conditions should we help to improve the lives of distant strangers rather than those of our family members? At what point does an embryo or foetus become a person, with all the rights that that entails? Is it ever permissible to raise and kill non-human animals in order to use their meat for food? Sometimes, this uncertainty arises out of empirical uncertainty: we might not know to what extent non-human animals feel pain, or how much we are really able to improve the lives of distant strangers compared to our family members. But this uncertainty can also arise out of fundamental normative uncertainty: out of not knowing, for example, what moral weight the wellbeing of distant strangers has compared to the wellbeing of our family; or whether non-human animals are worthy of moral concern even given knowledge of all the facts about their biology and psychology. In fact, for even moderately reflective agents, decision-making under normative uncertainty is ubiquitous. Given this, one might have expected philosophers to have devoted considerable research time to the question of how one ought to take one’s normative uncertainty into account in one’s decisions. But the issue has been largely neglected. This thesis attempts to begin to fill this gap. It addresses the question: what ought one to do when one is uncertain about what one ought to do? It develops a view that I call metanormativism: the view that there are second-order norms that govern action that are relative to a decision-maker’s uncertainty about first-order normative claims. In consists of two distinct parts. The first part (Chapters 1-4) develops a general metanormative theory. I argue in favour of the view that decision-makers should maximise expected choice-worthiness, treating normative uncertainty analogously with how they treat empirical uncertainty. I defend this view at length in response to two key problems, which I call the problems of merely ordinal theories and the problem of intertheoretic comparisons. The second part (Chapters 5-7) explores the implications of metanormativism for other philosophical issues. I suggest that it has important implications for the theory of rational action in the face of incomparable values, for the causal/evidential debate in decision-theory, and for the value we should ascribe to research into moral philosophy.

This thesis explores the normative propriety of immigration detention in liberal states. In the first part of the thesis, I explore the development, current practice, and popular justifications for immigration detention in the United Kingdom. I argue that a crucial but unacknowledged role for immigration detention is to function as a political spectacle of the centralisation of power in liberal states. I find that the key motivation for detaining non-citizens is that they could abscond before their removals. I conclude that this basis for detention is normatively acceptable in only very limited cases and, even then, alternatives are often available and ethically preferable. Based on the fact that there is a normatively acceptable rationale, albeit circumscribed, for detention practices, I then propose a framework of minimum standards of treatment in detention that I advise all liberal states to follow. After outlining my proposal, I turn in the second part of the thesis to an examination of the normative theories of immigration control and how they take account of detention. Normative theorists differ in how they balance their commitments to individual and state rights, yet I find the majority concedes the need for some degree of immigration admissions control. Such theories face a moral dilemma: there can be no immigration control without detention, and so detention becomes an implicit assumption for these normative theories to be coherent. A potential solution for combating the practical problems associated with the growing, worsening detention estates as well as the moral dilemma of incarcerating a non-citizen based on fear of absconding would be to open borders and eliminate immigration control. Given the reality of the sovereign right to control immigration, however, I argue that the more feasible normative answer is lobby liberal states to adopt my framework of minimum standards of treatment while simultaneously pressing for open borders as the long-term ethical goal.

The normative moral code is considered to be such that it applies universally to all or at least to all who can understand and govern their behavior by it. All or almost all common folk think of and use their own moral codes as them being normative in that for example there simply seem to them to exist “oughts” that apply to all and that there simply, straightforwardly are “things” that are right and wrong, good and bad. Gert Bernard and Gert Joshua have written an article on the topic of defining morality, with the title of “The Definition of Morality”. The authors suggest that the terms ‘normative morality’ refer to a code of conduct that, given some specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. The authors take this formulation as entailing true and important definitional features of what normative morality is, although the authors think of this basic definition, conception as not being complete and that some additional feature hence is lacking but that any such candidate addendum to the definitional basic schema that they surveyed within the article seemed to be controversial, contested. Normative morality seems apt to investigate by creating thought-experiments wherein the participants are for example, envisioned choosing to endorse, put forward or act in accordance with a moral code. Within this large investigative project into normative morality with the help of thought-experiments it seemed to me that there was an under-representation of thought-experiments exhibiting some worthwhile and relevant features and I felt that it was a warranted project to create a thought-experiment which concurrently exhibited these features. Such an experiment could be thought of as an unusual “puzzle-piece” which could be valuable in contributing to furthering the completion of the “puzzle”, i.e. what normative morality is and its moral code. These three features were: i) a high degree of aptness for investigating a major part of or the complete normative moral code and ii) a high degree of freedom pertaining to the participants, e.g. their actions, thoughts etc., as well as iii) a high degree of confidence or warrant concerning what the participants would do, think, feel etc. within the thought-experiment. A thought-experiment, the Normative Moral Codes Workshop (NMCW) was hence created, which was aimed at investigating normative morality and its code and which exhibited these features. It is a thought-experiment mimicking an actual empirical study wherein the participants are given the task to together put forward the moral code for them, that would apply to them and that would cover a major or complete part of what they consider their moral codes to entail. The participants employed within my run of the NMCW thought-experiment were all currently living adult persons who I knew well. The core or main aim of this essay was to investigate whether it would or would not be the case that most or all participants within my run of the thought-experiment the NMCW would decide to put forward the code together with the chosen formulation of the thesis being, that it would not be the case that most or all participants would put forward the code within my run of the NMCW thought-experiment. Part of the core aim was also to elucidate why the thesis was supported or not supported as well as how strong the support was for the outcome of the experiment, i.e. the outcome of a code being put forward or not. The essay also has some minor aims which radiate out from the core aim (see below). As the thought-experimenter, I then reported on the events that I envisioned as happening within my run the NMCW thought-experiment as my selected participants grappled with the task and their decision to put or not put forward the code together that would apply to them. The finding was that the thesis was supported and that the support was robust in that I could identify several reasons the participants had against putting forward the code and I found very little in terms of reasons among the participants for putting forward the code. The essay also had some minor aims to selectively discuss a few further relevant and interesting issues radiating out from the core aim. These minor aims revolved around discussing some selected salient features of the NMCW including how they could relate to the outcome. One such selected salient feature was the feature of the employed participant sample of my run of the NMCW. I for example, discussed the potential extension of it not being the case that most or all participants would decide to put forward the code, if the participant sample would have been modified but still employed currently living5adults and I ended up being of the opinion that pertaining to most potential samples a similar outcome as the one envisioned within my run of the NMCW would be expected. I also wanted to discuss some further selected salient features of the NMCW within the context of addressing whether the NMCW, given its features ought to be considered an unsound, inapt experiment for investigating normative morality, given Gert’s and Gert’s conception of normative morality, since if this was the case the outcome of the experiment ought to be disregarded, given no weight. Although, I did find potential targets for criticism of the NMCW experimental design I did not find any reasons strong enough to disqualify the NMCW experiment as an experiment inapt, unsound for investigating normative morality, given the features of normative morality entailed within the suggested basic definition provided by Gert and Gert. Finally, I also aimed to selectively discuss some aspects of what it could mean pertaining to the conception of normative morality, according to Gert and Gert, that the thesis was supported. For example, given one interpretation the outcome could be taken to provide support for the non-existence of a normative moral code, but given another be taken to mean that addenda has to be identified and added to the basic conception of normative morality and that such addenda would be such that they would disqualify the NMCW (and its outcome) as a sound and apt thought-experiment to be employed in investigating normative morality. I also attempted to briefly illustrate how the NMCW thought-experiment could be used as a substratum facilitating the identification and clarification of such potential addenda to the basic conception of normative morality, suggested by Gert and Gert, and I also suggest some potential candidate features of the NMCW that further potential specifications added to the basic conception of morality ought to be able to disqualify, exclude as acceptable features of experiments aimed at investigating normative morality. In this way, an unusual, under-represented kind of thought-experiment, “puzzle-piece” when it comes to the large investigative project of employing experiments in order to acquire further insight into normative morality, i.e. “the puzzle”, can regardless of whether it seems to fit or does not seem to fit the “puzzle”, still be employed in such a way as to potentially provide further insight into “the puzzle”. This since even when a “puzzle-piece” does not seem to fit the “puzzle”, “seeing” and understanding how and why could provide us with information about the “puzzle”.
Den normativa moraliska koden anses vara sådan att den gäller universellt för alla eller åtminstone för alla som kan förstå den och reglera sitt beteende i enlighet med den. Alla eller nästan alla vanliga människor tänker och använder sig av sina moraliska koder som om dessa koder vore normativa, normerande genom att det t. ex. för dem helt enkelt verkar finnas ”måsten” som gäller alla och att det ”rakt upp och ner” verkar finnas ”saker” som helt enkelt är rätt och fel, gott och ont. Gert Bernard och Gert Joshua har skrivit en artikel kring ämnet hur man kan definiera moralen med titeln “The Definition of Morality” (sv. ”Moralens Definition”). Författarna föreslår att termen ’normativ moral’ (eller den ’normativa moralen’ i bestämd form) gäller en kod som reglerar hur man bör uppföra sig som givet vissa specificerade förhållanden är sådan att alla rationella personer skulle omfamna och förespråka den. Författarna anser att denna formulering innehåller viktiga och sanna egenskaper hos definitionen kring vad normativ moral är, även om författarna anser att denna basala, grundläggande definition, konception inte är fullständig och att därför vissa ytterligare definitions egenskaper, specifikationer saknas men att alla granskade kandidat-tillägg till denna basala definition som undersöktes inom artikeln verkade vara kontroversiella, enligt författarna. Normativ moral verkar lämplig för att undersökas genom att skapa tankeexperiment inom vilka deltagarna tex kan föreställas stödja, lägga fram eller agera i enlighet med en moralisk kod. Inom detta stora undersökande projekt av normativ moral med hjälp av tankeexperiment så verkade det enligt mig som om det fanns en under-representation av tankeexperiment som uppvisade vissa värdefulla och relevanta egenskaper och jag ansåg att det var ett rättfärdigat projekt att skapa ett tankeexperiment som uppvisade dessa värdefulla och relevanta egenskaper. Ett dylikt experiment kunde anses vara en ovanlig ”pusselbit” som kunde vara ett värdefullt bidrag till slutförandet av ”pusslet”, dvs vad normativ moral är och dess kod. De tre under-representerade egenskaperna var i) en hög grad av lämplighet för att undersöka en stor del av den normativa moraliska koden6eller den kompletta koden och ii) en hög grad av deltagarfrihet, exempelvis avseende deltagarnas handlingar, tankar osv samt iii) en hög grad av förtroende eller rättfärdigande avseende vad deltagarna skulle göra, tänka, känna osv inom tankeexperimentet. Tankeexperimentet, den Normativa Moraliska Kods Workshoppen (NMKW) skapades därför med målsättningen att undersöka den normativa moralen, dess kod samt att experimentet då skulle uppvisa de ovan nämnda egenskaperna. Det är ett tankeexperiment som liknar, ”speglar” en riktig empirisk studie inom vilka deltagarna ges uppgiften att tillsammans stödja och lägga fram den moraliska kod som skulle gälla för dem, reglera deras uppförande och som till en stor del eller fullständigt skulle täcka, innehålla det som de ansåg att deras moraliska koder innehöll. Deltagarna som användes inom min körning av tankeexperimentet var alla nu levande vuxna person som jag ansåg att jag kände väl. Kärn- eller huvudmålsättningen med uppsatsen var att undersöka huruvida det skulle eller inte skulle vara fallet att de flesta eller alla deltagare inom min körning av NMKW tankeexperimentet skulle bestämma sig för att tillsammans lägga fram och stödja en kod, med den valda formuleringen för tesen enligt, det skulle inte vara fallet att de flesta eller alla deltagare skulle lägga fram och stödja koden inom min körning av NMKW experimentet. Som en del av kärnmålsättningen var det att utreda varför tesen var eller inte var stödd samt utreda hur starkt stödet var för utfallet av experimentet, dvs utfallet att en kod lades fram eller inte lades fram. Uppsatsen har även mindre eller bi-målsättningar som strålar ut från uppsatsens huvudmålsättning (se nedan). I min roll som tanke-experimenteraren så rapporterade jag sedan kring vilka händelser som jag föreställde mig, som jag ”såg” uppträda inom tanke-experimentet NMKW då mina valda deltagare tog sig an uppgiften som de ombads att utföra, dvs att tillsammans lägga fram och stödja den kod som skulle komma att gälla dom själva, att appliceras på dom själva. Fyndet var att tesen stöddes och att detta stöd var robust eftersom jag kunde identifiera flera skäl hos deltagarna mot att lägga fram koden medan jag fann mycket litet i form av skäl hos deltagarna för att lägga fram koden. Uppsatsen hade även en del mindre målsättningar att selektivt diskutera några ytterligare relevanta och intressanta spörsmål som strålade ut från uppsatsens huvud-målsättning. Dessa mindre målsättningar kretsade kring att diskutera vissa valda tydliga, centrala egenskaper hos NMKW experimentet samt hur dessa kunde tänkas vara relaterade till experimentets utfall. En sådan egenskap vara den specifika deltagargruppen som användes vid min körning av experimentet. Jag diskuterade till exempel, den potentiella extensionen av utfallet att det inte var fallet att de flesta eller alla deltagare valde att lägga fram koden, ifall deltagargruppen modifierades men fortfarande bestod enbart av nu levande vuxna människor och min värdering var att ett liknande utfall, som vid min körningen av NMKW, verkade troligt för de flesta potentiella grupper av deltagare. Jag ville också diskutera vissa valda tydliga, centrala egenskaper hos NMKW experimentet inom kontexten kring huruvida NMKW experimentet givet dessa egenskaper, borde anses vara ett osunt, olämpligt experiment för att undersöka den normativa moralen, givet Gerts och Gerts konception av denna. Detta, eftersom om detta vore fallet så borde utfallet av experimentet förkastas och inte ges någon vikt. Trots att jag hittade potentiella saker att kritisera hos den experimentella designen hos NMKW så hittade jag inte några tillräckligt starka skäl för att diskvalificera NMKW experimentet som ett olämpligt, osunt experiment för att undersöka den normativa moralen, givet den normativa moralens egenskaper beskrivna, täckta inom Gerts och Gerts föreslagna basala, grundläggande definition av denna. Slutligen så ville jag även selektivt diskutera vissa aspekter kring vad det kunde betyda för konceptionen av den normativa moralen, enligt Gert och Gert, att tesen stöddes. Exempelvis, så givet en tolkning så kunde utfallet ses som ett stöd för icke-existensen hos den normativa moraliska koden, medan givet en annan tolkning så kunde utfallet anses betyda att ytterligare addenda till den basala definitionen av den normativa moralen måste identifieras och adderas till definitionen och att dylika addenda skulle komma att vara sådana att de skulle diskvalificera NMKW experimentet och dess utfall som ett sunt och lämpligt experiment att användas för att studera den normativa moralen, nu med dess extenderade specifikation. Jag försökte sedan att illustrera hur NMKW tankeexperimentet kunde användas som ett substrat för att underlätta identifieringen och förtydligandet av dylika potentiella tillägg till den basala konceptionen av den normativa moralen enligt Gerts och Gerts förslag, och jag föreslog även vissa potentiella kandidat egenskaper hos NMKW experimentet som dylika ytterligare tillägg till den basala konceptionen borde kunna diskvalificera, exkludera som acceptabla egenskaper hos experiment designade för att undersöka den7normativa moralen. På detta sätt så kan en ovanlig, underrepresenterad typ av tankeexperiment, ”pusselbit” när det gäller det stora undersökningsprojektet som använder sig av experiment för att erhålla ytterligare insikter inom den normative moralen, dvs ”pusslet”, oberoende om det verkar passa eller inte passa in i ”pusslet”, ändå användas på ett sådant sätt så att det potentiellt kan leda till ytterligare insikter kring ”pusslet”. Detta eftersom även när en ”pusselbit” inte verkar passa in i ”pusslet” så kan ”seendet”, förtydligandet och förståelsen kring hur och varför, ändå potentiellt förse oss med information om ”pusslet”.

This licentiate thesis is comprised of a “kappa” and two articles. The kappa includes an account of personal autonomy and informed consent, an explanation of how the concepts and articles relate to each other, and a summary in Swedish. Article 1 treats one problem with the argument that a patient’s consent to treatment is valid only if it is authentic, i.e., if it is “genuine,” “truly her own,” “not out of character,” or similar. As interventions with a patient’s life and liberties must be justified, the argument presupposes that the authenticity of desires can be reliably determined. If the status of a desire in terms of authenticity cannot be reliably determined, discarding the desire-holder’s treatment decision on the basis that it is inauthentic is morally unjustified. In the article, I argue that no theory of authenticity that is present in the relevant literature can render reliably observable consequences. Therefore, the concept of authenticity, as it is understood in those theories, should not be part of informed consent practices. Article 2 discusses the problem of what it is to consent or refuse voluntarily. In it, I argue that voluntariness should be more narrowly understood than what is common. My main point is that a conceptualization of voluntariness should be agent-centered, i.e., take into account the agent’s view of her actions. Among other things, I argue that an action is non-voluntary only if the agent thinks of it as such when being coerced. This notion, which at first look may seem uncontroversial, entails the counterintuitive conclusion that an action can be voluntary although the agent has been manipulated or coerced into doing it. In defense of the notion, I argue that if the agent’s point of view is not considered accordingly, describing her actions as non-voluntary can be alien to how she leads her life. There are other moral concepts available to describe what is wrong with manipulation and coercion, i.e., to make sense of the counterintuitive conclusion. Voluntariness should be reserved to fewer cases than what is commonly assumed.

QC 20170821