Template talk:Ethics.html



WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated Template-Class)

Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. Template This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale. Related task forces: Ethics

Criteria

Can we establish an objective criteria for inclusion? Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries? It's difficult to ascertain whether ethics of care deserves similar standing to the three dominant normative ethical theories for example, or which philosophers belong in the list of ethicists by reading the individual articles alone. Any proposals?Skomorokh 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

it does. i learned it in ethical theory and have taught it. it's as good as virtue theory in its modern construction. if you want standards.... just use citation count on philosopher's index perhaps over 1000. --Buridan 00:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was rhetorical. What do you mean by "citation count on philosopher's index" exactly?Skomorokh 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The philosopher's index is a citation index for philosophy. it will tell you how many times a work has been cited in the philosophy literature, journals and books. if something is never cited or rarely cited, like say ayn rand novels, then it is not really philosophy, but if it has over 1000 citation, then it is. if you want to know if something is important or central to the field, or subfield in philosophy, you look at how many times it is cited and who cites it. --Buridan 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don`t have a citation counter here but am quite sure Gilligan cannot possibly be a key thinker on a par with Aristotle or Kant, or even Macintyre --Isolani 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right and wrong

The links for these two ethical concepts are woefully lacking. Right currently refers to legal rights, as in a right to due process, with no reference to the opposite to wrong. Wrong, while going to a page that describes it ethically ("the opposite of right"), still has little substance. Can someone please improve this wrong.—Red Baron 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using Right and wrong, which currently redirects to Ethics, as the page to describe the ethical meanings of these words.—Red Baron 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Trust"

Currently this links to a disambiguation page. For this Template perhaps the article Trust (social sciences) was intended. Since this template is on many pages is there a simple way to update all the pages with this template or does it have to be done on an individual basis? Lmielke359 03:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Core Issues

I am surprised that responsibility (in particular: "Moral responsibility") isn't listed as a core issue of ethics. - Atfyfe 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not Socrates

I included Socrates but it was removed saying "Socrates not recognized in contemporary literature as a pre-eminient ethical theorist." But It is always recognized as a moral philosopher (even cited on top of Ethics) and still very influential to some that don't accept any kind of contingency.--Pediboi (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)