• Character and Moral Judgement | Reason | Aristotle
  • Hasty Moral Judgement by Cindi Martinez on Prezi
  • Teaching Kids Values & Moral Judgement | Udemy

Character and Moral Judgement - Download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online.

Does Science Contribute to Sound Moral Judgement …

TOP 12 MORAL JUDGEMENT QUOTES | A-Z Quotes

Moral Judgement Quotes - Search Quotes
(a) Torture for extracting confessions ofa crime of which one is accused (as practiced, for example, underRoman Law). This practice, of which there is not a trace ofapproval in Scripture, even under the harsh Old Testament law,seems even more repugnant to the Law of Christ, even though it wasaccepted as (and even put into practice)by Church authorities for many centuries during the patristic,medieval and early modern times. Explicit Christian opposition tothe practice dates back to Tertullian, and the reasons for itsimmorality were well summed up by Pope St. Nicholas I (cf. B1above). This authentic, but so often obscured, Christian judgment,is now clearly expressed again the in #2297.

Moral Judgement | The Work of Redemption

Posts about Moral Judgement written by Russ Allen
So analytic and synthetic a priori judgments sharply differ not onlyin the nature of their semantic content (i.e.,concept-based/truth-functional-logic-based/monadic-predicate-logic-basedvs. intuition-based) but also in their modal scope (true in alllogically possible worlds vs. true in all and only humanlyexperienceable worlds and truth-valueless otherwise). Nevertheless,despite this sharp difference in modal scope—from which itfollows, perhaps surprisingly, that for Kant there are logicallypossible worlds in which synthetic a priori propositions such as“7+5=12” are thinkably deniable—since synthetic apriori judgments are either true or truth-valueless in everylogically possible world, it also follows that they are neverfalse in any logically possible world and thus satisfyKant’s general definition of a necessary truth, i.e., that aproposition is necessary if and only if it is strictly universallytrue, in that it is true in every member of a complete class ofpossible worlds and has no possible counterexamples or falsity-makers(Hanna 2001, ch. 5). Less abstractly and gallumphingly put, asynthetic a priori judgment is a necessary truth with a humanface.

 

Nietzsche on Morality and Moral Judgement : philosophy


However, as we have argued, not everything thatescapes the extreme moral censure of being evil or unjust can without further ado be pronounced compatiblewith the New Law of Christ. Jesus has left us no specific legalinstructions for dealing with crime in a society based on Gospelprinciples. But as we have seen in Part I of this study, the Lordhas certainly left us, by precept and personal example, a newapproach or outlook which emphasises, much more than the Old Lawdid, the importance of mercy and forbearance in the treatment ofsinners. We could reasonably try to formulate a general legalprinciple, in application of this Gospel teaching, to the effectthat . Also, the contemporary magisterium( #27) has emphasized also the harm in thiscase spiritual, moral and psychological that theinfliction of grave physical pain on another human being does tothe tormentor himself. In contrast to the profession of being anordinary prison warder (and probably even the role of anexecutioner who presses a lever to administer a lethal injectionor, in the case of hanging, to open a trapdoor), the role oftorturer not only brutalizes and renders increasingly insensitiveto terrible human suffering the agent himself; even worse, thatrole or function will tend to attract in practice, as the onlypersons in society willing to carry out such a function, thosesorry types of individuals who already have at least latentsadistic tendencies, and so will actually their grislytask. But precisely in that situation, another type of grave sin(or at least the near occasion thereof) will be involved: that of in the infliction of intense pain, oftenaccompanied by perverse sexual satisfaction.


Applying these notions to judgments, it follows that a judgment is aposteriori if and only if either its logical form or its propositionalcontent is strictly determined by sensory impressions and/orcontingent natural objects or facts; and a judgment is a priori if andonly if neither its logical form nor its propositional content isstrictly determined by sensory impressions and/or contingent naturalobjects or facts, and both are instead strictly determined by ourinnate spontaneous cognitive faculties, whether or not that cognitionalso contains sensory matter. Kant also holds that a judgment is apriori if and only if it is necessarily true (Axv, B3–4,A76/B101). This strong connection between necessity and apriorityexpresses (i) Kant’s view that the contingency of a judgment isbound up with the modal dependence of its semantic content on sensoryimpressions and/or contingent natural objects or facts, i.e., itsaposteriority (B3), (ii) his view that necessity is equivalent withstrict universality or strenge Allgemeinheit, which hedefines in turn as a proposition’s lack of any possiblecounterexamples or falsity-makers (B4), and (iii) his view thatnecessity entails truth (A75–76/B100–101). FurthermoreKant explicitly holds that not only do a priori judgments really existin various sciences, including physics and legitimate (i.e.,transcendental idealist) metaphysics, but also that there really aresome pure a priori judgments, e.g., in mathematics(B4–5, B14–18).


The Social Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgement SIM | …

, I suggest, is essentially the kindof torture contemplated and condemned by Vatican II, and thensubsequently branded by John Paul II, as one example of"intrinsically evil" practices among others, when he quotes theCouncil word for word in #80 (cf. B12above). I do not think we can conclude much more than this aboutthe morality of pain infliction from these two magisterial texts. For that would be trying to make them provide answersto questions they did not set out to address.

ethics - Hume's position on Moral Judgement - …

By contrast yet again and finally, the three kinds ofmodality of a judgment are supposed by Kant to capture thethree basic ways in which the copula of a simple 1-placesubject-predicate proposition “contributes nothing to thecontent of the judgment … but rather concerns only the value ofthe copula in relation to thinking in general”(A74/B99–100). This doctrine might seem to confuse the threepropositional attitudes of “opining” (Meinen),epistemic belief, and certainty (A820–823/B848–851), asdiscussed in the supplementary document , with the alethic modal notions of possibility, actuality, andnecessity. Or even worse, it might seem to psychologize modality.

Moral Judgment —Ayn Rand Lexicon

What was the status of thisdeplorable regression to ancient cruelty? With the exception of B6above, to which we shall return below, the relevant papal andconciliar decrees were all clearly disciplinary, rather thandoctrinal, in character. That fact, however, does not in itselfguarantee that no doctrinal position was being assumed by theChurch in regard to the practice in question. For approvedtheologians ever since Bellarmine, Melchior Cano, and Suarez in the17th century have argued that Christ’s promise ofthe Holy Spirit’s unfailing assistance to his Church willguarantee that at least categories of ecclesiasticallegislation can never be contrary to faith or morals, or otherwiseinflict serious harm on the Church and souls. This was confirmed bythe Council of Trent when it anathematized the contention ofCalvinists and other Puritans that "the ceremonies, vestments andoutward signs" prescribed by liturgical law for the celebration ofMass are "incitements to impiety". Likewise, Pius VI in 1794condemned the Jansenist teaching that the Church had in factpassed, or ever pass, legislation "which is not onlyuseless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but whichis dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition andmaterialism". However, the consensus ofapproved theologians interpreting such magisterial interventionsseems to be that by no means ecclesiastical legislationenjoys such a guarantee, but only that which is "universal", notjust in the geographical sense of applying throughout the Catholicworld, but in the anthropological sense of applying to the faithful. In other words, we can be sure the Holy Spiritis never going to allow Peter’s Successor to command, or evenauthorize, the Church as a whole – the great bulk of thefaithful round the world – to commit sin, or to do somethingthat will cause grave harm. For that would be contrary to the’note’ of sanctity ("One, , Catholic andApostolic") which is a revealed attribute of the Church.