Chapter 2 Ethics Matters: As a listener, should you refuse to listen to a speaker with whom you fundamentally disagree? These three examples represent ethical choices speakers and listeners face in the public speaking context. In this chapter, we will explore what it means to be both an ethical speaker and an ethical listener.
David Silverman and the scope of atheism — Postscript by Massimo Pigliucci Predictably, my recent post on some remarks made by American Atheists President David Silverman has generated a firestorm on blogs and twitter, even though I thought the opinions expressed therein are actually quite mild.
But such is the nature of debates in the age of social networking. There are several interesting points that have emerged from the thoughtful discussion that has taken place on this blog, for which I thank my readers.
No, I never check discussion threads on other blogs. Sorry, not enough time and energy! Some of these points have also been taken up by two of the most critical commentaries, one by PZ Myers and the other one by future Rationally Speaking podcast guest Greta Christina.
I will analyze these as representative of the discussion, and as an occasion to further clarify my own views. Predictably, neither piece takes a kind view of my essay, nor, frankly, did the authors try to give it a charitable reading that may lead to fruitful discussions rather than name calling.
But it was certainly an instance of sloppy writing on my part. After some of my readers pointed it out, I revised the entry to read: We do this all the time, and it is a cornerstone of our moral education — in true virtue ethical-Aristotelian fashion, I might add.
We begin with young children, trying to both explain to them the reasons why certain things e. We do it to adults too, of course. We criticize the greed emotion! And this goes for positive emotions as well, of course: So, what exactly, is the problem with someone arguing that another person should morally feel troubled by a certain ethically salient decision?
But that is also highly problematic. As one of my readers pointed out, we do this too all the time. And the same holds for pretty much any other ethical discussion: It happened many years ago, and I have no intention of going into the personal details of it, but both people involved were definitely secular and were definitely weighing the issue from a non-religious perspective.
I am a bit at a loss to see how a fellow traveler in atheism, skepticism and critical thinking could so grossly misread what I wrote. That phrase referred to generic diatribes among atheists, not to the basic right to bodily autonomy of half the human race.
My strong pro choice position ought to be clear, and I take women's issues very seriously. Except of course that we get much of our non-religious ethical discourse precisely from philosophy, and that to reject the need for rational discourse on ethics is a bizarre position to take for someone who is interested in reason and critical thinking.
And I would add that to refuse to grant intellectual validity to thoughtful opponents is precisely the tactic of the Religious Right, not to be imitated. While the first is obviously relevant to the second, one can very consistently maintain that there is something to be debated about the ethics of abortion while at the same time staunchly defending a woman's right to have one.
But Christina already knew of my correction to the above statement she acknowledges it at the end of her postwhich should have set things straight.
Why did Christina go on with her diatribe even though I had already corrected my post and explained what I actually meant?
No interest in being charitable, apparently, nor in actually engaging in a discussion. Are you aware that the fight against abortion rights has been waged, almost entirely, by the Religious Right? Are you aware that the case against abortion rights is almost entirely centered in religion?
Being an atheist carries no logical broadly construed, see below connection whatsoever to a lot of political positions about social issues. And yes, I do read newspapers and I am aware of where the opposition to abortion mostly comes from. But, as usual, things are more complicated than that simple narrative.
To begin with, there are plenty of religious people who are pro-choice. There are also plenty of prochoice people who would not have an abortion themselves. Second, my original post was much more narrowly focused:Ethical Awareness Inventory Analysis Ethical Awareness Inventory Analysis Gen/ Ethical Awareness “You tend to base your ethical perspective on what it is good to be, rather than what it is good to do” (The Williams Institute for Ethics and Management, ).
What is Corporate Critic? Corporate Critic is a product of the Ethical Consumer Research Association. Corporate Critic indexes and rates the Corporate Social Responsibility records of over 25, companies, using primarily civil society data.
Goal 1. The knowledge and skills that lead to success in college, the ability to usecritical thinking and analysis in all aspects of student life, and preparation for assuming the role of citizen leader working for the common good (one credit).
Public Speaking: The Virtual Text is a free online public speaking textbook. Chapters appear in PDF format and may be printed in black and white or in color.
This is an extraordinary ethical dilemma, historically speaking and thus reflected through the novel, because, from a utilitarian point-of-view, the action of allying with the Soviets during the Second World War is just: choosing the lesser of the evils to defeat the greatest evil manifesting itself at that time, the evil one is fighting.
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action..
It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because.