Jump to content

Talk:Morality/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Human and workers rights

I extremely doubt that workers and humans have any rights when the following laws are refused justice or even a hearing by our governments agents, departments and employees.The issues are public and employee endangerment that should of left myself and members of the public dead.

The issues are Violations of Worker’s and the Public’s Safety by our government representatives. These are the laws governing the government’s duties to,

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-112.html#docCont CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Marginal note:Criminal negligence • 219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who o (a) in doing anything, or o (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

United Nations Order to the Rule of Law. Nobody is above the Law. All publicly disclosed written laws must go through certain procedural steps known as Due Process. 

Common Wealth Law

The main criteria of Common Wealth Law, is that any country that is a member of the Common Wealth must uphold the Constitution of that country and abide by the Rule of Law.

Article VI of the United States Constitution. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

From the North American Free Trade Agreement on Labour Cooperation; Section 9- Government enforcement action (Article 3) – each Party shall promote compliance with and effectively enforce its labor laws through appropriate government actions.

Section 10- Private Action (Article 4) – each Party shall ensure that persons with a legally recognized interest under its law in a particular matter have appropriate access to administrative, quasi-judicial, judicial or labor tribunals for the enforcement of the Party’s labor law.

Section 11- Procedural Guarantees (Article 5) – each Party shall ensure that its proceedings for the enforcement of its labor law are fair, equitable and transparent; 

 Canada did not enforce our labor laws governed under the Workers Compensation Act of B.C. leaving workers and the public exposed to endangerment through none compliance.

Incidents that must be investigated, From the Workers Compensation Act of B.C. 173 (1) An employer must immediately undertake an investigation into the cause of any accident or other incident that (c) did not involve injury to a worker, or involved only minor injury not requiring medical treatment, but had a potential for causing serious injury to a worker, or Investigation process 174 (1) An investigation required under this Division must be carried out by persons knowledgeable about the type of work involved and, if they are reasonably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative. (2) As far as possible, the investigation must (a) determine the cause or causes of the incident, (b) identify any unsafe conditions, acts or procedures that contributed in any manner to the incident, and (c) if unsafe conditions, acts or procedures are identified, recommend corrective action to prevent similar incidents. (3) The employer must make every reasonable effort to have available for interview by a person conducting the investigation, or by an officer, all witnesses to the incident and any other persons whose presence might be necessary for a proper investigation of the incident. Article 179 (g) require a person to produce within a reasonable time records in the person's possession or control that may be relevant; The duty of the Workers Compensation board of B.C. is to conduct investigations and provide representation as set out under Article 111. They refused to comply with the laws governing public and workers safety. Laws governing life threatening issues. Division 2 — Board Mandate Board's mandate under this Part 111 (1) In accordance with the purposes of this Part, the Board has the mandate to be concerned with occupational health and safety generally, and with the maintenance of reasonable standards for the protection of the health and safety of workers in British Columbia and the occupational environment in which they work. (2) In carrying out its mandate, the Board has the following functions, duties and powers: (a) to exercise its authority to make regulations to establish standards and requirements for the protection of the health and safety of workers and the occupational environment in which they work; (b) to undertake inspections, investigations and inquiries on matters of occupational health and safety and occupational environment; (c) to provide services to assist joint committees, worker health and safety representatives, employers and workers in maintaining reasonable standards for occupational health and safety and occupational environment; Failing to Comply by WCB and WCAT puts the issues under the jurisdiction of the Provincial and Federal governments. Application of Part 108 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Part applies to (a) the Provincial government and every agency of the Provincial government, (b) every employer and worker whose occupational health and safety are ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the Provincial government, and (c) the federal government, every agency of the federal government and every other person whose occupational health and safety are ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, to the extent that the federal government submits to the application of this Part.

The end result of failing to comply with these laws is severe injury or death. For Documented Evidence that will shock you Refer to Stuart Alexander McFarlane Parker at facebook, https://www.facebook.com/stuart.a.parker.7 People need to demand compliance through a court hearing for salvation of the laws governing our rights and safety. The People’s Rights and Safety, you and your children are at risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuArtSonofAl (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What does the first sentence mean?

The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity.

"Different peoples of humanity"?

Jstrayer (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's using "people" as a singular noun roughly equivalent to "culture" or "nation"; read it as "different cultures of humanity". I'd be OK with changing it to that if that makes more sense to you. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Objective morality as presupposed, and supposed by 5 experts

Morality is founded on self-interest, which includes the pleasure we find in sensing the pleasure in others. -David Hume

While Russell wrote a great deal on ethical subject matters, he did not believe that the subject belonged to philosophy or that when he wrote on ethics that he did so in his capacity as a philosopher. In his earlier years, Russell was greatly influenced by G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica. Along with Moore, he then believed that moral facts were objective, but known only through intuition; that they were simple properties of objects, not equivalent (e.g., pleasure is good) to the natural objects to which they are often ascribed (see Naturalistic fallacy); and that these simple, undefinable moral properties cannot be analyzed using the non-moral properties with which they are associated. In time, however, he came to agree with his philosophical hero, David Hume, who believed that ethical terms dealt with subjective values that cannot be verified in the same way as matters of fact.

Coupled with Russell's other doctrines, this influenced the logical positivists, who formulated the theory of emotivism or non-cognitivism, which states that ethical propositions (along with those of metaphysics) were essentially meaningless and nonsensical or, at best, little more than expressions of attitudes and preferences. Notwithstanding his influence on them, Russell himself did not construe ethical propositions as narrowly as the positivists, for he believed that ethical considerations are not only meaningful, but that they are a vital subject matter for civil discourse. Indeed, though Russell was often characterised as the patron saint of rationality, he agreed with Hume, who said that reason ought to be subordinate to ethical considerations

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them,” wrote Immanuel Kant, “the starry heavens above and the moral law within.”

One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.” -Steven Pinker

" is the worst possible misery for everyone a bad thing? Once we admit that the extremes of absolute misery and absolute flourishing—whatever these states amount to for each particular being in the end—are different and dependent on facts about the universe, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality." -Sam Harris

Submitted by Johnathan Clinger — Preceding johnathan clinger comment added by 151.151.109.17 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there supposed to be some suggestion or objection regarding this article's content in there? If not, please note that this talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the topic of morality. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What about emotion?

There is nothing in this article on emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.42.18 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing "Mirror Neuron" section

I don't know if this is a job for the Mirror Neuron main page or not, but the way they are represented in this article assumes too much and includes no scientific articles backing up the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcrowe17 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Morality VS Wikipedia?

Does not morality violate Wikipedia's position on article neutrality, as it inherently makes value judgements?Shyguy76767 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to this article's content? --NeilN talk to me 04:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Shyguy76767: Are there any biased value judgments in this article? Jarble (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusing redirect pages

  • @Neelix: I noticed that you targeted several redirect pages to this article, including inappropriate and properness. These words are ambiguous, but I haven't found any disambiguation pages for them. Would it be feasible to create disambiguation pages that discuss all possible meanings of these words? Jarble (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for calling me into discussion on this issue, Jarble! I created these redirects about six years ago, and haven't really thought about them since. They could potentially be turned into disambiguation pages, if we can find enough valid entries. For Inappropriate, we could include an entry linking to NewsRadio (season 1) to indicate the television episode. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so, if we turn some of these redirects into disambiguation pages, each of the entries needs to correspond to a valid Wikipedia article. Let me know your thoughts. Neelix (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Moralisme

"Moralisme" differs from "Moraliteit" differs from "Moraal" (Morality/Moraliteit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.200.202 (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A call for more sub-sections

The sections on Evolution, "Morailty and Politics" and "Morality and religion" could use sub-sections. Without subsections, one gets the impression that what is written are "universal truths", rather than positions, however well researched. Exactly how moral intertwines with evolution, politics and religion is not yet hewn in stone. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Descriptive and normative

A box asks for citations for this section. Citations would be good, but citations does not seem vital enough to delete the section for lack of citations, since the content merely describes a very common division in most academic disciplines of the genre, the distinction between descriptive and normative. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 

Perhaps http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ will do as a citation?
I need to brush up on how to edit refs :)

Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/ is a citation for the etymology of Morality. Also, I feel it should be pointed out that the words ethics and morals are sometimes used interchangeably, which is only natural, since their etymological origins mean roughly the same thing.Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

misdirections

The line "Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals, as well as moral epistemology, or what is known about morals." has issues.

  1. "Moral ontology" is linked to "Ontology", a subject which does not in itself have anything to do with moral.
  2. There is no article on "Moral ontology" and no citation to it. It is possible that some citation leads to the interpretation, "origins of morals", despite the fact that the word "ontology" has nothing to do with "origins", but with neither citattion nor plausible meaning, it should not be here.
  3. "Moral epistomology" is linked to "Meta-Etics", but I do not see this in the article on meta-ethics. Here at least the explanation makes borderline sense, but the citation is wrong.

The sentence should be either improved by proper citations or erased altogether. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition

"Morality...is the differentiation of decisions and actions between those that are...proper and those that are improper" I hate this definition. What the #&@ does "improper" or "proper" mean? What criteria, standard does it need to satisfy to be "proper"? ANY? So moral action means ALL conscious action? That can't be right. Can't someone hammer out a less vague definition? Vree (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The rest of the article fleshes out different standards put forth for what makes something proper/improper etc. To be "less vague" in the definition would bias the article toward one of those controversial points of view. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Definition Citation

In the first sentence of this article the definition of morality is defined. As a support the "The Hellenistic Philosophers: Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary" work is cited. The word origin is not supported anywhere in the cited work, while the description of the word's definition is neither supported in a way that follows the definition in the article. Maybe the editor should wither delete or add the section where this statement is supported in full. Its important since its the introductory statement of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasileios Kreouzis (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Morality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Morality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Decent" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Decent. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ibadibam (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Guiding hand" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guiding hand. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Morality

This definition needs more work, as is could be quite harmful and unethical. When we are explaining we should also have an ear for those that are not in such a lofty position to put down these words. Comments please so we can move this page onto a place that our good intentions do not create harm. Shenqijing (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Mirror neurons

I'm a neuroscientist and I don't see what mirror neurons have to do with morality. That paragraph is confusing if not bad/wrong.

The pop-sci account is that they're responsible for empathy, which should have an obvious relationship to morality. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Empathy comes from a well grounded Moral ethic. Humanitarian efforts instead of oneself. In buddhism it is loving kindness, in Christian thought it would be charity. Morality untill then is subjective. Shenqijing (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of daode (道德)

I have included daode (道德) as the Chinese equivalent to morality. Shenqijing (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the mention of Latin in the lede is just the etymology of the page title; that's not where we put translations of the title into every other language, so adding the Chinese equivalent there is not appropriate. We can absolutely mention it somewhere else in the article, though. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Taoism and Confucian influence.

We will need to expound this page due to the distinct lack of Asian influence. So with historical communication between the Occident and Asia nothing in morality or ethics or humanity has been learnt, even by mistakes made ?. Shenqijing (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to flesh out the body of this article with more reference to Asian schools of ethics. There are probably plenty of other articles about them on the encyclopedia that you can draw on for content, making this page a summary of them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The notion of Morality.

The Notion of Morality should not to be presented from its conception as coming forth from one faith, religion or Geo centralised location, please. As the links that connect this page suggest. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective Morality is determined quite easily according to the initiation of force

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is the initiation of force (violence, threats, coercion, corruption, fraud, theft) is immoral, and the proportional response to the initiator of force is moral. The real crime is the violation of informed consent. Children cannot give informed consent, which is why a peaceful society authorizes neutral unbiased 3rd parties to decide whether to give informed consent on behalf of children. If you must initiate force to compel people to abide by your ideology, then your ideology fails the test of reason and is immoral. 161.97.246.51 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tjh1022.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CaptainJoseph.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Small deletion

Paragraph "In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge.." deleted as not relevant to morals as construct/in definition. Whilst I like the first sentence I couldn't leave it standalone. The remainder, in my opinion, is of the class "this [subjectively classed] group of people (pundits) definitely do [semi-subjectively classed] action (pose politically)", which strikes me as unnecessary/POV. mr happyhour 18:10 04 AUG 06

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morality/Archive_2&oldid=1152225338"