ethics

(redirected from Moral philosophers)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia.
Related to Moral philosophers: moral philosophy

ethics

 [eth´iks]
1. a branch of philosophy dealing with values pertaining to human conduct, considering the rightness and wrongness of actions and the goodness or badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
2. systematic rules or principles governing right conduct. Each practitioner, upon entering a profession, is invested with the responsibility to adhere to the standards of ethical practice and conduct set by the profession. adj., adj eth´ical.
applied ethics practical ethics.
descriptive ethics a type of nonnormative ethics that simply reports what people believe, how they reason, and how they act.
medical ethics the values and guidelines governing decisions in medical practice.
nonnormative ethics ethics whose objective is to establish what factually or conceptually is the case, not what ethically ought to be the case. Two types are descriptive ethics and metaethics.
normative ethics an approach to ethics that works from standards of right or good action. There are three types of normative theories: virtue theories, deontological theories, and teleological theories.
nursing ethics the values and ethical principles governing nursing practice, conduct, and relationships. The Code for Nurses, adopted by the American Nurses' Association (ANA) in 1950 and revised periodically, is intended to provide definite standards of practice and conduct that are essential to the ethical discharge of the nurse's responsibility. Further information on the Code, interpretative statements that clarify it, and guidance in implementing it in specific situations can be obtained from committees and councils on nursing practice of State Nurses' Associations or from the ANA Nursing Practice Department.
practical ethics the attempt to work out the implications of general theories for specific forms of conduct and moral judgment; formerly called applied ethics.
professional ethics the ethical norms, values, and principles that guide a profession and the ethics of decisions made within the profession.

eth·ics

(eth'iks),
The branch of philosophy that deals with the distinction between right and wrong, with the moral consequences of human actions.
[G. ethikos, arising from custom, fr. ethos, custom]

ethics

(1) The study of fundamental principles which define values and determine moral duties and obligations.
 
(2) Moral codes of practice concerned with: behaviour (moral conduct)—e. g. unprofessional behaviour, such as direct discrimination; legal, religious, social and personal concerns (moral issues); and debates within society—e.g. euthanasia vs. prolonging the life of a terminally-ill person.

eth·ics

(eth'iks)
1. The branch of philosophy that deals with the distinction between right and wrong, with the moral consequences of human actions.
2. nursing Philosophy or code about what is ideal in human character and conduct; principles of right or wrong accepted by individual or group; study of morals and moral choices.
[G. ethikos, arising from custom, fr. ethos, custom]

eth·ics

(eth'iks)
The branch of philosophy that deals with the distinction between right and wrong and with the moral consequences of human actions.
[G. ethikos, arising from custom, fr. ethos, custom]

Patient discussion about ethics

Q. The cobbler's shoes are never fixed A bit philosophical/ethical question: do you think it’s a appropriate to an alternative therapist to treat people with disease he or she has and can’t cure himself?

A. Even dietitian can suffer from depression and eat too much, or a gym coach that suffers from injury that prevents him or her from exercising. The knowledge and capabilities are not dependent on the specific situation of the therapist, not to mention the many explanations for such cases.

However, I do agree it may seem a bit suspicious…

More discussions about ethics
References in periodicals archive ?
Singer has one great disadvantage as a moral philosopher: he writes as if he has heard of human beings, but never actually met any.
6) Although they cannot resolve moral disagreement, moral philosophers may provide other useful services.
The papers are grouped into two thematic sections - "Social and Organizational Processes" and "Risk, Reasoning and Decision Making" - and each section is followed by moral philosophers.
Moral philosophers have been less inclined to pursue this line of argument, but it may have some plausibility.
In Poverty and Compassion, she mines the written literature of the period, beginning (as she had earlier ended) with Henry May-hew, moving to Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree, through a number of less obvious philanthropists such as Thomas Barnardo and Samuel Barnett, to more formal social and moral philosophers such as T.
Focusing on Dickens and Thackeray, with Carlyle as their antagonist, Kaplan traces sentimentalism back to the eighteenth-century moral philosophers, particularly David Hume and AdamSmith.
He has written no original work of moral philosophy recognized by moral philosophers, as Lippmann did in A Preface to Morals.
Moral philosophers, seeking to explain moral conflict within human nature, posited an opposing, evil Genius.
She charged that "every one of the best known English academic moral philosophers has put out a philosophy to which, e.g., it is not possible to hold that it cannot be right to kill the innocent as a means to any end whatsoever and that someone who thinks otherwise is in error." After rejecting such moral philosophy as spurious, Anscombe suggested that moral philosophers return to an approach resembling that of Plato and Aristotle and how these philosophers speak about the good life--such an approach would begin, in fact, not with ethics, but with philosophy of psychology.
This book brings together two celebrated moral philosophers and juxtaposes their arguments concerning free will and faith.
For this 11th edition, the section on the contemporary era has been reworked to emphasize the continuity in history of moral philosophy with the addition of more contemporary authors who work within the general framework of one of the historically important moral philosophers. Within each section introduction, explanations of key concepts are new for this edition and discussion questions after each reading are also new.
However, we might wonder whether these observations about faces can be of much use to moral philosophers; for it is unlikely that we respond to faces in a consistent and systematic way.