Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Ethics[edit]

Ethics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 30 June 2024, 16:40 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. It examines competing theories about how people should act in general and in specific domains while considering the assumptions on which the theories rest. Thanks to 750h+ for encouraging this nomination and all the helpful suggestions during their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink[edit]

Big fan of the subject matter, so I thought I’d review it, especially as I have an ongoing FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Hilary/archive1 - so it would only be ethical to review this.

Hello Hurricanehink, thanks for doing the ethical thing and reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now! Thanks for all of the fixes and/or explanations, that all makes sense. Happy to support now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement ideas and your support! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I’m sure others are gonna mention that an image at the top-right would be nice for the page, like Aristotle, but at the same time I get not having one.
    I agree, it would be nice to have an image but I'm not aware of a representative image of ethics in general. Using an image of a philosopher for a general topic article can be tricky because it may favor a specific tradition. Maybe we could use the scales of justice but this is not that typically used for ethics per se. The image in Ethics#Basic_concepts was used earlier as the lead image but it was stated in the peer review that it was too complicated for the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Ethics or moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral phenomena.” - thats a bit self referential. Philosophical study could probably just be “study”, but I’m not a fan of just linking “moral” and letting the wiki link do the lifting. The second sentence of the lead is better, since that’s a better Explain-it-like-I’m-5 description for the topic.
    I moved the part about "moral philosophy" to the next sentence to make it less self-referential. I kept the "philosophical" to distinguish ethics form the non-philosophical study of moral phenomena, like moral psychology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”It is usually divided into three major fields: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.” - the “usually” sticks out to me (as does “fields”). Perhaps something like “The primary branches of ethics include…” I think “branch” is better than “field”, since that’s used in normative and metaethics articles.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, for example, by exploring the moral implications of the universal principles discovered in normative ethics within a specific domain.” - not sure if I’m reading it wrong, but is the “for example” needed?
    This corresponds to the top-down methodology which is useful to establish the connection with normative ethics. With the "for example", we are on the safe side since some theorists also use a bottom-up methodology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Moral psychology is a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in morality, such as moral reasoning and the formation of moral character.” Three mentions of “moral” plus “morality.” Is there any way you could rewrite a bit to not use the five letters “moral” so many times? Like, could moral reasoning and moral character be piped to just “reasoning” and “character”?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definition
  • The fourth paragraph seems like a repeat of the lead and what comes later, so it seems pretty redundant to mention normative/applied/metaethics again, particularly since you don’t go into the definition of “normative” or “meta.”
    I shortened the passage and merged it into the first paragraph. I don't think we can fully remove it since the lead section is supposed to summarize sourced text in the body of the article and the other sections don't discuss this division. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was briefly looking for the etymology, and I think that should be higher up in the definition section.
    I moved it up as the third paragraph, which fits well since the following paragraph also discusses terminological issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normative
  • ”For example, given the particular impression that it is wrong to set a child on fire for fun, normative ethics aims to find more general principles that explain why this is the case, like the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent, which may itself be explained in terms of a more general principle.” - eek, well, of course! As for why I brought this up, is the “for fun” part needed? Like, I’m not sure if it only applies as normative ethics if the argument is whether it is wrong to have fun doing that, or if it’s just wrong in general. Also, “given the particular impression that it is wrong” feels a bit off, but I’m not sure a better way to word it. Maybe it could be shorter and carry the same message? Like, “For example, the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent explains why it is wrong to set a child on fire.” I feel like it has the same message, but it’s clearer and more succinct.
    The example is taken from Kagan 1998 p. 1, which explicitly mentions that it is done "for the mere pleasure". The difficulty here is probably to find a concrete example where everyone agrees. Without the "for fun", there could be cases where it is acceptable, possibly if it is not done for pleasure but to prevent a highly contagious supervirus in child from spreading. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”One difficulty for systems with several basic principles is that these principles may conflict with each other in some cases and lead to ethical dilemmas.” Such as the Trolley problem? I feel like it’s one of the best known ethical dilemmas, but maybe that’s just because I watched The Good Place. I see it appears later under “moral knowledge”, but it might be useful earlier in the article.
    I usually try not to repeat examples in the same article. The prime example for this one would be David Ross and his prima facie duties. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but if we wanted, we could include an example along the lines of the second paragraph of The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Different theories in normative ethics suggest different principles as the foundation of morality.” - try rewording to avoid saying “different” twice
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”A more recently developed view additionally considers the distribution of value: It states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.” - recently as of when? 2020s? 20th century? After the fall of the Roman Empire?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you to for “very unlikely” and “very limited knowledge” under the types subsection? The “very” feels borderline opinionated.
    Mainly to emphasize. I removed them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption: “Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the founding fathers of utilitarianism.” - is there a source calling them the founding fathers? It feels a bit opinionated right now. A more neutral caption would be “Portraits of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who developed the field of utilitarianism.”
    I added a source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Utilitarianism was initially formulated by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by John Stuart Mill.” - some date reference might be nice. Was this randomly out of nowhere, or part of a broader philosophical trend of the 1700s?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Some critics of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that it is a "philosophy of swine" whose focus on the intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in sensory pleasures.” - few issues here. First, you should attribute the quote, if it’s even necessary at all to refer it to swine (I’m guessing an oblique reference to pigs having long lasting orgasms?) It feels a bit out of place without the context. Also, could you avoid saying “pleasure” twice in the same sentence?
    I removed the reference to swine and reformulated the passage to avoid the word repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Today, there are many variations of utilitarianism, including the difference between act and rule utilitarianism and between maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.” - I’m not a fan of using “today”. Is that going to change to yesterday in 24 hours? I’ll have to Chex back and find out :P Alternately, perhaps something like “In the centuries since Bentham and Mill, variations of utilitarianism have developed, including…”
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”For example, according to David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.” - maybe provide some context for who Ross is? You did that for Bentham and Mill, so that would be helpful. Also, maybe get rid of “for example” if you add something like “According to Scottish philosopher David Ross” (or however you think he needs to be introduced)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don’t get into the difference of agent vs patient centered. Is that patient, like, having patience? Or a doctor’s patient?
    I tried to clarify the relevant passages. They now read Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the person who acts and the duties they have ... Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affect by actions the rights they have. Should we add a footnote to clarify the differences between patient as being affected vs having patience vs a doctor's patient? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth adding a pic of Kant?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Divine command theory sees God as the source of morality.” - as an atheist, I’d rather not have “God” used here so matter of factly. Could you reword it to make it more neutral? God isn’t even linked here, and it’s written as if it’s an accepted fact that God exists.
    I reformulated the passage to not imply God's existence in wikivoice. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metaethics
  • ”Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other” - how come these are italicized?
    This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we refer to them as terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”This position can be understood in analogy to Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that the magnitude of physical properties like mass, length, and duration depends on the frame of reference of the observer.” - idk if this is needed. I thought the previous sentence made complete sense already, and then when I got here I was wondering why it was here.
    I moved it to an explanatory footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”An influential debate among moral realists is between naturalism and non-naturalism.” - you don’t really get into the debate, so is “influential” appropriate?
    I slightly reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Cognitivism and non-cognitivism - what do you mean by “truth-apt”? I don’t think you used that term before.
    This is explained in the next sentence. I merged the two sentences to make this clear. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Another thought experiment examines the moral implications of abortion by imagining a situation in which a person gets connected without their consent to an ill violinist. It explores whether it would be morally permissible to sever the connection within the next nine months even if this would lead to the violinist's death.” - ok this needs way more context. You should probably mention that the thought experiment is that it’s a pregnant ill violinist apparently? I was quite confused for a bit why it suddenly turned musical.
    I added an extra sentence to clarify that this is an analogy about the relation between mother and fetus without any fetuses present in the imagined situation. The musical turn is indeed confusing. This is part of the original formulation of the thought experiment but it's not essential that it is a violinist. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applied ethics
  • Why is military ethics bolded in the middle of the paragraph?
    This is because of the redirect per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. I added a corresponding comment
Related fields
  • ”For instance, the question of how nurses think about the ethical implications of abortion belongs to descriptive ethics.” - why nurses and not doctors who would actually be administering the procedure?
    Because that's the example of descriptive ethics used in the source. With a corresponding source about doctors, we could also change it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Some of this is covered elsewhere in the article, which makes me wonder, perhaps this should be the second main section, after “Definition”? The article on philosophy, for example, starts with “Etymology” and has a history section before getting into the branches.
    In principle, it could be done. Many overview works on ethics focus on the branches, concepts, and schools of ethics rather than the chronological development of the discipline. This indicates that the history is not the most important part of this article and should not come right at the beginning. Another difficulty would be that the history section uses various concepts that are explained in the other sections. If we wanted to have the history first, we might have to include a more detailed discussion of them already there, which could lead to various repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment. It’s a long read, at 8,941 words. Considering that this is an overview of the subject, and the many many links to various topics, I feel that the article should be condensed wherever possible. Perhaps remove redundant examples. Or, like the stuff in the history section that’s repeated elsewhere, you could trim it by having the history section first, and then removing the duplicate mentions of certain people.

Given the scope of the topic, I think we are not doing too bad length-wise. For a comparison, we are still below the 9000 mark of WP:SIZERULE. Except for the big names like Kant and Bentham, I don't think there is much overlap between the history and the rest. I'll keep a lookout for opportunities to condense the material as I respond to other reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciated your work on the article, and I enjoyed the read, so it’s my ethical duty to finally wrap up my review that I’ve been working on for… several hours. So here it is. Lemme know if you have any questions, @Phlsph7:. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for your indepth review and the helpful suggestions. I implemented most and I hope I didn't miss any. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Femke[edit]

Amazing you've tackled this article! First impressions are good. Except for a small module on morality among primates at uni and failing to read the The Ethics of Ambiguity, I know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard anything you're not sure about / disagree with.

  • In the lead, the order is applied ethics before meta-ethics. Would it make sense to follow this in the article too? Metaethics is a more scary difficult subject, so we may want to start easier in the body too.
    There has already been some discussion on the section order on the talk page and the peer review. Initially, meta-ethics was first to go from abstract to concrete. Then, because of the difficulty of its topic, it was moved to come after applied ethics. Then it was requested to have it before applied ethics since it "deals with much more general issues likely to be of interest to more readers". I don't feel strongly either way since there are good arguments for each approach. The order in the lead section was mainly chosen because it's easier to present the topics this way in a single paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normative ethics[edit]
  • Many theories of normative ethics aim additionally to guide behavior by helping people make moral decisions --> also aim rather than aim additionally? Sounds too formal like this
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A key aspect of consequentialist theories is that they provide a characterization of what is good and then define what is right in terms of what is good --> this could do with an example.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • shaped to result in --> shaped to achieve might flwo better?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many consequentialists assess the value of consequences based on whether they promote happiness or suffering. --> Many types assess (to avoid having consequences twice)?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various disagreements about what consequences should be assessed --> various is unnecessary here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rule consequentialism uses considerations of consequences to determine which rules should be followed: people should follow the rules that have the best consequences in a community that accepts them. --> That first bit of the sentence is confusing and complicated. Maybe something like this would be better: "Rule consequentialism determines the best rules by considering their outcomes at a community level. People should follow the rules that lead to the best consequences when everyone in the community follows them."
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, if a prohibition to lie is part of the best rules then, according to rule consequentialism, a person should not lie even in a particular case where lying would result in the best possible consequences --> For example, if not lying is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should not lie, even if lying would lead to better consequences in a specific case. (seems simpler)
    I implemented a slight variation of your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another disagreement on the level of consequences is between actual and expected consequentialism. --> I think you can remove "on the level of consequences".
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine the moral value of this act --> According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine its moral value. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another difference --> A further difference (avoids starting two paragraphs in the same vein).
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this regard, deontologists often allow that there is a gap between what is right and what is good --> I don't know if following the rules is right or good after reading this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I clarified this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for how long this review is getting. It may be more suitable for PR at this point. I plan to go over the text twice, first in detail, and then again in a quick read. My second read of the lead:
    I appreciate you taking the time for this detailed assessment. Given the scope of the topic, longer-than-average reviews are probably not entirely avoidable. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations belonging to a specific domain, such as abortion and treatment of animals. --> The word "applied" already implies "belonging to a specific domain", which can be omitted for simplicity. A third example may be useful instead.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not introduce the word metatheory in the lead. It's difficult jargon and not necessary to understand the sentence.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would only give 3 examples of metaethics, as it's a difficult concept, and applied examples will be easier to understand.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consequentialism -> Some theorists define teleological ethics as the wider term that also encompasses certain forms of virtue ethics --> "a wider term"?
    I clarified the explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deontology - These norms describe the requirements or duties that all actions need to follow. --> Can we omit duties? Using metonymy makes the text more complex (that is, duties are typically something individual do). Or rewrite so it's clear the duties are for individuals?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many tend to follow a negative approach by holding that certain acts are forbidden under any circumstances --> I suspect the word negative is jargon in this sentence, but I don't a 100% sure I'm understanding it.
    I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agent-centered theories are often interested in the motives and intentions for which people act and emphasize the importance of doing something for the right reasons. --> Agent-centred theories often focus on the motives and intentions behind people's actions, highlighting the importance of acting for the right reasons. (is "for which people act" correct English? Used further down too)
    I implemented your suggestion but I think either formulation works (for example, see [1]) Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affect by actions the rights they have. --> Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affected by actions and the rights they have
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He insists that moral action should not be guided by situation-dependent means-end reasoning to achieve some kind of fixed good, such as happiness. --> Quite a difficult sentence. I associate the term "fixed good" with what economists mean with good (economics). Could specific goal work better? I've never seen means-end as an adjective, and find it difficult to parse the sentence with two compound adjectives behind each other. The paragraph that follows explains this concepts as well, with a lot more clarity.
    I reformulated the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still quite tough to read. Can we make it more concrete? Mean-end relationship is very abstract. Britannica does a better job at explaining I think. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see if the current version is better. It does not use the term "means-end". We could introduce the distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, like the Britannica article, but this might increase the length of the explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This means that the person would want everyone else also to follow this maxim. --> Omit that? And change also to as well for flow?
    I moved it to a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was to omit the word "that" for flow. The sentence is full on one-syllable words which for me breaks the rythm of the text. Super minor point. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, sorry for the misunderstanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discourse should follow certain requirements characteristic of an ideal speech situation to ensure fairness and inclusivity. --> Not sure if this is correct, but can we omit "certain requirements characteristic of"?
    I reformulated that part. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An important factor in this regard is the practical wisdom, also referred to as phronesis, of knowing when, how, and which virtue to express. --> in this regard is unnecessary, right?
    It helps establish the connection with the point from the previous sentence but it's not essential so I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agent-based theories, by contrast, see happiness only as a side effect and focus instead on the motivational and dispositional characteristics that are expressed while acting. --> I don't quite know what disposition means. Can we reword "motivational and dispositional characteristics" as motivation and disposition.
    I found a way to express the idea without the word "dispositional". I kept the expression "motivational characteristics" to help distinguish virtue theory from deontology by talking about underlying tendencies. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    much clearer :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postmodern ethics instead focuses on how moral demands arise when encountering others --> I don't understand.
    I tried to clarify it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not super clear still, but this may be becasue postmodern ethics is not that clear? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably one of the reasons. As I see it, our sentence is not particularly difficult to understand, but it's also not particularly useful in helping people decide how to act. The sentence was added in response to a PR request since the rest of the paragraph is more about postmodern criticism of other views than about their own views. I don't think the sentence is important but I also don't think that it does much damage. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was normative ethics done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Applied ethics[edit]
  • and whether other considerations are relevant - that's quite vague. Can we omit it?
    The first part of the sentence belongs to the top-down methodology. Without the second part, the reader may have the impression that this is the only approach, which would be curious given that we discuss the contrast in the next paragraph. I reformulated the sentence to make it a little more concrete. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the Kantian "respecting personhood " relates to the medical procedure. Is a more concrete example possible?
    I used the more concrete case of abortion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it difficult to understand the difference between casuistry and the top-down approach.
    I expanded the explanation of casuistry. I hope it's clearer now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • why single out the International in the duty towards future generations? A lot of environmental problems are at a national scale
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A central topic in medical ethics concerns issues associated with the beginning and the end of life. -> Medical ethics often addresses issues related to the start and end of life. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This implies that all other entities only have a derivative moral status to the extent that they affect human life. --> This suggests that all other entities possess moral status only insofar as they impact human life. (?)
    Done. I kept the "derivative moral status" to contrast with the "basic moral status" in the previous sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to the end of life, there are ethical dilemmas concerning a person's right to end their own life in cases of terminal illness and the assistance provided by medical practitioners in doing so. --> At the end of life, ethical issues arise about whether a person can choose to end their life in cases of terminal illness and if doctors should help them do so. (simpler)
    I made a minor adjustment to your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to rephrase, but "An influential consideration in this field emphasizes the importance of animal welfare while arguing that humans should avoid or minimize the harm done to animals." is a bit odd. I don't quite understand what this consideration is. Could we say something like "This field often emphasizes".
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its widest sense, it covers the whole biosphere and the cosmos. --> Biosphere is odd here, as it's a stricter sense than the previous sentence (natural resources aren't part of the biosphere, and ecosysmtes arguably cover the entire biosphere). Can we omit it?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention future generations above, but not in the section about environmental ethics. The two ethical questions I hear most about in environmental ethics are around climate justice (rich people polluting, poor people suffering), and duties towards future generations. But then, I have not read any actual philosophical texts on this, so not sure if it's due.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A closely related topic concerns the --> A closely related topic is ..
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Business ethics further examines the role of truthfulness, honesty, and fairness in business practices --> Do we need both honesty and thuthfulness. Honesty captures thuthfulness already, right?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ethics of technology has implications for both communication ethics and information ethics regarding communication and information technologies. --> Is this important?
    The main purpose of this sentence is that communication ethics and information ethics are mentioned somewhere in the article. We could try another formulation or move them to the See-also section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    information ethics is mentioned previously. I don't think we need to mention communications ethics separately. The article is a mess, so a link isn't that useful at the moment either.
    I removed the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as prosthetic limbs, performance-enhancing drugs, and genetic enhancement. --> It's not clear how prosthetic limbs pose an ethical problem to me. Can we omit this example?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are commonly divided into --> It is commonly divided into?
    The "they" refers to the conditions mentioned in the previous sentence. I reformulated it to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional topics are recruitment, training, and discharge of military personnel as well as the procurement of military equipment. --> Again, not quite clear why this stands out. All institutions do procurement. Why single out the military? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed this example. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its widest sense, it examines the moral issues associated with any artifacts created and used for instrumental means, from simple artifacts like spears to high-tech computers and nanotechnology. --> I don't understand what "for instrumental means" means. Can it be omitted? The second artifact might need replacing items for avoid repetition.
    I found a way to avoid the expression "instrumental means" and remove the second use of the term "artifact". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • questions surrounding the issue of --> and questions about. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note: I'm moving in the direction of a support, but do want to do a second read to see if I can come up with more ideas on how to make the article understandable to a sufficiently broad audience. In particular, the bits around Kant are tough to explain, and not quite there yet in my view. I'll be on holiday, busy with work, and then hosting parents, so I might not come back till the 8th of July. I don't think I'll forget, but ping me if I do. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear that the article is moving in the right direction. I hope you enjoy your small wiki holiday. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do about the subsection "Kantianism" and I hope we can overcome this stumbling block. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima[edit]

  • File:Head of Aristotle.jpg, File:EMB - Buddha stehend.jpg, and File:Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg are all CC-BY-SA photos of a PD statue.
  • File:Jeremy Bentham by Henry William Pickersgill detail.jpg, File:John Stuart Mill by London Stereoscopic Company, c1870.jpg, File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg, File:Little boy.jpg, File:1914 George Edward Moore (cropped).jpg are all PD photos.
  • File:Philippa Foot 1939.jpg is not PD in the US. I've nominated it for deletion.
  • File:JuergenHabermas.jpg is CC-BY-SA
  • File:Trolley Problem.svg is CC-BY-SA
  • File:Cesarean section.jpg is CC-BY-SA
  • File:Battery hens -Bastos, Sao Paulo, Brazil-31March2007.jpg is CC-BY
  • File:Deontic square.svg is CC-BY

Alt-text is good. Images are directly applicable to the subject. Besides the Philippa Foot image, all seems good here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks for your image review and for catching the problem with the image of Philippa Foot. I removed the image and found a way to include an image of Simone de Beauvoir instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on image review. Looks good, thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by: Don't have time for a full review, but saw this while reading the page which stuck out and thought I'd add a comment An exception is J. L. Mackie's error theory, which combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts - all error theory is an exception, not just that espoused by J. L. Mackie. Maybe Mackie should be mentioned in the history section instead. Relatedly Moral skeptics reject the idea that moral knowledge is possible by arguing that people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior isn't that what they're arguing for, not the argument itself? I guess there isn't room to include questions about our access to moral facts or the (non)explanatory role of ethical concepts, but this could be worded better at least. Shapeyness (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Shapeyness and thanks for taking a look at the article. I moved Mackie to the history section and I switched the explanation in the sentence on moral skeptics around. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Phlsph7, that fixes both of those. Shapeyness (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ethics/archive1

Leave a Reply