Ad
related to: not understanding right and wrong words book summary analysis guide sample
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The argument from disagreement, also known as the argument from relativity, first observes that there is a lot of intractable moral disagreement: people disagree about what is right and what is wrong. [3] Mackie argues that the best explanation of this is that right and wrong are invented, not objective truths.
The book's synopsis describes the work as an "analysis and discussion of moral language and the assumptions underlying its use. This book contends that much of our prescriptive language pertaining to issues such as gambling, abortion, capitol punishment, homosexuality, prostitution, divorce, freedom of speech and expression, pornography, and others, is devoid of moral content."
In other words, Michael Cook's book focuses on the "Islamic duty to lead others to do good and, especially, to stop others from doing wrong". [6] He follows in his book the development of the ideas over Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong via investigating the large amount of content produced by Muslim scholars.
The book was published in 1996 by Harvard University Press under the full title Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Much of the book details observations of primate behavior, especially that of chimpanzees and bonobos . [ 1 ]
The book has been used to reconcile utilitarian and rules-based ethics. [25] Humanist psychologists have used the book to explain why only proven phenomena is needed to prove why morality exists, and what the parameters of morality should be. [26] Theists have commented on the way the book grounds ethics without recourse to religion. [27]
Right & Wrong: How to Decide for Yourself is a book on ethics by Hugh Mackay published in 2004 [1] [2] [3] and again with an updated edition in 2005. References
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me) is a 2007 non-fiction book by social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. It deals with cognitive dissonance , confirmation bias , and other cognitive biases , using these psychological theories to illustrate how the perpetrators (and victims) of hurtful acts justify and rationalize their behavior.
"Two wrongs make a right" has been considered as a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis , "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.