Talk:Ethics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEthics has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 10, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that some ethical theorists believe that all moral claims are false?

Changes to the article[edit]

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. There is still a lot to do. Major parts lack references, there are many "citation needed" tags and one "Synthesis" tag.

At some points, the article has too much information: this type of overview article should mostly focus on general patterns and leave the details to more specific articles (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). For example, the section "Normative ethics" has 12 subsections, many of which have themselves several subsubsections. A similar problem applies to the 12 subsubsection of the subsection "Particular fields of application". One way to address this issue would be to only include subsections for the most important topics and summarize the remaining subsections maybe to one paragraph each without a separate subsection. For example, the subsection "State consequentialism" could be included in the section "Consequentialism" rather than having a separate subsection. And the subsection "Intuitive ethics" talks about ethical intuitionism, which belongs to metaethics rather than normative ethics. Many of the subsubsections of "Particular fields of application" only have one or two sentences and it shouldn't be a problem to merge them into another section.

An important part that is missing in the current version is the history of ethics. I think it deserves its own section without going too much into detail, maybe one or two paragraphs per main period (ancient, medieval,...). Various smaller adjustments would be needed for the different topics discussed in the article but they can be addressed later. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. I still have to do some research to work out the details. After that, I would start implementing them one at a time but it will probably take a while to address all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your progress looks great so far!
I think the history section could use one or two more sentences which go further into the 20th and 21st century. My suggestion would be an mentioning the introduction of Personal identity via Parfit and something perhaps something from Rawls—two huge figures who seem to be missing.
Considering that consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics are the chief normative ethical approaches, it might be good to single them out, like how certain traditions were singled out in the Philosophy article's history section.
Also, it seems a bit jarring to me that the first section of the article would be on metaethics, considering it is the youngest tradition of the three branches and definitely not the first thing people think of when they think of ethics (presumably that's normative ethics). Aza24 (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aza24 and thanks for the feedback! I think it's a good proposal to focus on consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics in the section on normative ethics. My idea was to have one subsection for each together with one additional subsection called "Others" to discuss alternative theories.
I was thinking about mentioning Parfit but I'm not sure how to best include him in the history section. His discussions of personal identity were groundbreaking and have various implications for moral philosophy but they are not directly part of it. Maybe something about his rationalist moral realism stating that ethics is about responding to reasons and his attempt to reconcile consequentialism and deontology. Rawls is a heavy-weight in political philosophy so the article should mention him somewhere. I'm not sure if it's best to discuss Parfit and Rawls in the history section or in another part of the article.
You are right that in terms of the age of the branches and the reader's expectations, metaethics shouldn't come first. The main motivation for having it first is probably to go from abstract to concrete. Some sources follow this idea. Another approach would be to discuss metaethics after normative and applied ethics. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Others" division makes sense to me—that's what I was getting at when I mentioned modeling this after your work on the philosophy article's history section.
For Rawls, history section might make sense, given that so huge subsequent literature responding to him, the direct legal impact and the revitalization of political philosophy that his work had. For Parfit, I think both of your suggestions would work well, or perhaps something about his inauguration of population ethics. Contrasting Parfit with Bernard Williams on their opposing adherence to moral realism could be a natural way to include Williams as well (although I see he's in the definition section already, albeit in a rather general way, not particularly revealing of his contributions).
Your abstract to concrete idea makes sense, but the newness of metaethics + the oldness of normative makes it difficult to reconcilce that decision. But, per usual, I defer to your expertise. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a way to mention Parfit and Rawls in the history section. I haven't fully made up my mind about the section order and I would be interested to hear what others think. I'll keep my eyes open on how reliable sources deal with this issue as I do the research for the other sections. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. 750h+ (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, I’ll be reviewing. You’ve managed to create an excellent article. I am not big on philosophy, so if I make a mistake, please correct me. I’ll start reviewing this soon. 750h+ (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 750h+ and thanks for doing this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phlsph7. Excuse me if I make any mistakes (this will be my first [official] review). 750h+ (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section - pass[edit]

  • Consider adding the Template:Philosophy sidebar, because ethics are a branch of philosophy. 750h+ (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually try to avoid lead infobars since they are discouraged by MOS:LEADELEMENTS but let me know if you think this is an exception. The article has a philosophy navbar at the bottom. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, acceptable. 750h+ (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will not affect the good article passing, but on the lead image's caption, do we need to link prohibited and obligatory? They're already visually represented in the image, and most people are likely familiar with their meanings. 750h+ (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. 750h+ (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Normative ethics tries to discover and justify universal principles that govern how people should act in any situation." I understand this sentence is grammatically correct, but I feel that it would sound better if we rephrase it to "Normative ethics discovers and justifies universal principles that govern how people should act in any situation." 750h+ (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. 750h+ (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider stating more about the history and related fields. 750h+ (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I tried to keep it concise to not give too much emphasis to these topics in comparison to the main branches. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent job Phlsph7. I am passing the lead section. 750h+ (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition - pass[edit]

  • This is a pass. It is excellently written, free of grammatical errors, illustrated with a good picture of Aristotle and is well referenced.750h+ (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normative ethics[edit]

  • "Many theories of normative ethics try not only to provide principles to assess the moral value of actions but aim additionally to guide behavior by helping people make moral decisions." To make this more concise we can rephrase this to "Many theories of normative ethics aim additionally to guide behavior by helping people make moral decisions", or something similar to that. 750h+ (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentialism[edit]

Types - pass[edit]
  • "Most theories assess the moral value of acts. But consequentialism can also be used to evaluate motives, character traits, rules, and policies." This is also grammatically correct, but it sounds a bit strange to me. Maybe replace it with "However"? Your choice, this won't affect the passing of the article. 750h+ (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It states, for example, that an equal distribution of goods is overall better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same." Remove overall. 750h+ (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong but maybe rephrase this sentence "This implies that the relation between act and consequences is indirect." to "This implies that the relation between an act and its consequences is indirect." 750h+ (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the earliest forms of consequentialism is found in ancient Chinese philosophy where Mohists argued that political action should promote justice as a means to increase the welfare of the people." is there a way we can put into two sentences or more? single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. If we can't, then I can let it go. 750h+ (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I'm also not a fan of one-sentence paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More excellent work. I am passing this section. 750h+ (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utilitarianism - pass[edit]
  • I pass this section. Well-written, well sourced and pictures are good too. 750h+ (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deontology - pass[edit]

  • Rephrase "Examples are that one should tell the truth, keep promises, and not intentionally harm others" to "For instance, following moral rules includes telling the truth, keeping promises, and not intentionally harming others." for better flow and clarity. 750h+ (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the sentence "They may include requirements like to tell the truth, keep promises, and not intentionally harm others." If that doesn't work, we could also use your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agent-centered and patient-centered[edit]
Kantianism - pass[edit]
  • "For Kant, to act morally is to act in accordance with reason as expressed by these principles." I recommend you rephrase this to "According to Kant, to act morally is to act in accordance with reason as expressed by these principles." 750h+ (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Kant, actions motivated in such a way are unconditionally good, meaning that they are good even in cases where they result in undesirable consequences." I also recommend you change that to "According to Kant, actions motivated in such a way are unconditionally good, meaning that they are good even in cases where they result in undesirable consequences." Considering Wikipedia presents to a general audience, many people might not understand that by "For Kant", you mean "According to Kant". 750h+ (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Divine command theory, contractualism, and discourse ethics[edit]

Virtue ethics[edit]

  • Change "Feminist ethics of care constitute another form of virtue ethics." to "Feminist ethics of care are another form of virtue ethics." for conciseness. 750h+ (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Applied ethics[edit]

Bioethics[edit]

Business and professional ethics[edit]

Others - pass[edit]

  • In the third paragraph, "Military ethics is a closely related field that is interested in the conduct of military personnel." Why is "Military ethics" linked? The page redirects back to Ethics. 750h+ (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good reason so I removed it. It would be good to have an article on this topic, in which case the could be restored. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaethics[edit]

Basic concepts[edit]

  • "Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other:" Is it supposed to be "Obligations and permissions are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other:" 750h+ (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention was to refer to the terms themselves. I put them into italics now as per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. We could also use your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my bad. You do what you feel is more grammatically correct. 750h+ (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realism, relativism, and nihilism[edit]

Naturalism and non-naturalism[edit]

Cognitivism and non-cognitivism[edit]

Moral knowledge[edit]

Moral motivation[edit]

Related fields - pass[edit]

Value theory[edit]

Moral psychology[edit]

History[edit]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • There’s a lot of references in the bibliography. The article is sourced from reputable journals, books, scholarly articles, and dictionaries, with no flimsy websites or blogs, so that's a sourcing pass. Excellent job you have done Phlsph7.

Integrity check - pass[edit]

  • "Theories in normative ethics state how people should act or what kind of behavior is correct. They do not aim to describe how people normally act, what moral beliefs ordinary people have, how these beliefs change over time, or what ethical codes are upheld in certain social groups. These topics belong to descriptive ethics and are studied in fields like anthropology, sociology, and history rather than normative ethics" is sourced by reference number 12. Sims 2017, p. 6 and Barsh & Lisewski 2013, p. 29 both give a good overview.
  • "Consequentialism, also referred to as teleological ethics," is sourced correctly by Bunnin & Yu 2009 page 134.
  • "educational ethics, which covers ethical issues related to proper teaching practices,[115]" the Maxwell 2023 page 610 correctly summarises what is said; see Google Books for evidence.
  • " Pages 1681, 1682, 1863 of the 2013 Ames book nicely summarises the "Taoism extends the importance of living in harmony to the whole world and teaches that people should practice effortless action by following the natural flow of the universe." sentence.

Passing the integrity check. 750h+ (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is of excellent standards; exceeds good article criteria.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Perfect; understandable to most age groups-ranging from young teenagers to old adults.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No bare URLs spotted. The majority of sources are books, journals, and scholarly articles, cited in the bibliography
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). All citations are reliable; as mentioned in 2a
2c. it contains no original research. All statements are cited.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Excellent. It introduces the main fields of ethics
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Perfect, as mentioned in 3a
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No signs or biased statements.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable; there have been no recent edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are appropriately licensed.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are related to the topic, with most being of historical famous philosophers or philosophy-related figures.
7. Overall assessment. Excellent article overall.

Unrelated comments[edit]

Phlsph7, considering this is such a broad, comprehensive topic, I recommend you taking it to featured article. The Philosophy, Logic, and Communication articles are all excellent articles, so I think it's a good idea. Great work on the article. 750h+ (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congrats @Phlsph7:, I am happy with your responses and feel that it meets the criteria. 750h+ (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @750h+: Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions and the encouraging feedback! It can be difficult to predict how FA nominations go but I plan to give it a try. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Sources:

  • Miller, Christian B. (2023). "Overview of Contemporary Metaethics and Normative Ethical Theory". In Miller, Christian B. (ed.). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Ethics. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-350-21790-4. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 22, 2023.
  • Milevski, Voin (17 February 2017). "Weakness of will and motivational internalism". Philosophical Psychology. 30 (1–2). doi:10.1080/09515089.2016.1255317.
  • Reilly, R. (1977). "Socrates' Moral Paradox". The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy. 8 (1). doi:10.5840/swjphil19778110. ISSN 0038-481X.
  • Woollard, Fiona; Howard-Snyder, Frances (2022). "Doing Vs. Allowing Harm". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 5 October 2023. Retrieved 7 September 2023.
  • Rini, Regina A. "Morality and Cognitive Science". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 7 September 2023. Retrieved 7 September 2023.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ethics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Easy pass. Soon enough after a GA with citations in the right place. QPQ done. A tad worried about a couple borrowed clauses from this source, but they seem relatively negligible and might even be standard terms in this field. Overall, great to see this article reach GA and glad an interesting hook from it will run at DYK. Good work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to point out that Plato's dialogues don't necessarily represent the teachings of the historical Socrates (see Socratic problem). The sources both say "Plato's Socrates", and ALT1 needs some similar qualifier. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this detailed observation. I'm not sure that this qualification is required since this claim is found in various sources, many of which simply talk about Socrates. See, for example, [1], [2], and [3]. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are in WP:QPQ backlog mode. Double reviews are required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I was already wondering why some nominators provided 2 reviews. By my count, I'm at 15 completed nominations plus 3 open ones, which is still below the double-review-threshold. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The QPQ check tool to the right counts only 19. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If you feel that you have done less than 20 noms this can go forward. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked Phlsph7's count, and also got 15 completed noms. Restoring Pbritti's tick, as a second QPQ review is not required. Sorry that a more thorough check wasn't done before this nomination was interrupted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
  2. ^
  3. ^
    • Woollard & Howard-Snyder 2022, § 3. The Trolley Problem and the Doing/Allowing Distinction
    • Rini, § 8. Moral Cognition and Moral Epistemology

Images[edit]

Hi. I have created this image on ethics. Do you think it would be good to put it in the introduction, and to move the image that is currently in the introduction into "Normative ethics"? Then, the image caption would replace the sentence "It is usually divided into three major fields: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics."

However, I realize that descriptive ethics is less popular than the 3 other subfields of ethics. Do you think "Descriptive ethics" should be removed from the image? Alenoach (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's maybe not as informative as the current image, and it shows the subfields of ethics but without directly providing links. So, I'm actually not sure whether it would be an improvement or not. Alenoach (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well to reflect the article, descriptive ethics would indeed make sense removing.
Although I don't know if the image itself really adds much information. It conveys a rather base level of information, which is already easily readable in the text (and perhaps more comprehensible there). Aza24 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tend agree with you. No problem. Alenoach (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethics&oldid=1218141740"