Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Ethical Code (ethical + code)
Selected AbstractsRelativism, Absolutism, and ToleranceMETAPHILOSOPHY, Issue 4 2003Hye-Kyung Kim Abstract: A common view is that relativism requires tolerance. We argue that there is no deductive relation between relativism and tolerance, but also that relativism is not incompatible with tolerance. Next we note that there is no standard inductive relation between relativism and tolerance,no inductive enumeration, argument to the best explanation, or causal argument links the two. Two inductive arguments of a different sort that link them are then exposed and criticized at length. The first considers relativism from the objective point of view ,of the universe', the second from the subjective point of view of the relativist herself. Both arguments fail. There is similarly no deductive relation between absolutism and tolerance,neither entails the other,and no inductive connection of any sort links the two. We conclude that tolerance, whether unlimited or restricted, is independent of both relativism and absolutism. A metaethical theory that says only that there is one true or valid ethical code, or that there is a plurality of equally true or valid ethical codes, tells us nothing about whether we should be tolerant, much less how tolerant we should be. [source] Field primatology of today: current ethical issuesAMERICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY, Issue 9 2010K.C. MacKinnon Abstract As members of professional organizations such as American Society of Primatologists (ASP) and the International Primatological Society (IPS), primatologists must adhere to a set of nonhuman primate-focused principles outlined in resolutions and policy statements on, for example, the ethical treatment of nonhuman primates. Those of us that work in the field must also address issues such as the protection of primate health in the wild and the conservation of wild primate populations. Moreover, we increasingly find ourselves in complex situations where we must balance human and nonhuman primate needs and interests. The selection of commentary pieces in this edition of the American Journal of Primatology originated from presentations given in the symposium, Field Primatology of Today: Navigating the Ethical Landscape, held at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Primatologists (ASP) in September 2009. The goals of that symposium and these resulting commentary pieces are threefold: (1) to revive a discussion of key contemporary ethical issues faced by field primatologists, (2) to highlight the need for centrally placed ethical considerations in various facets of our professional lives, particularly research and teaching, and (3) to consider what a comprehensive ethical code that addresses all of these issues might look like. Am. J. Primatol. 72:749,753, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Slavery, Memory, and Museum Display in Baltimore: The Great Blacks in Wax and the Reginald F. LewisCURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL, Issue 2 2009Marcus Wood The analysis deals with the question by focusing on the radically contrasting museological, aesthetic, and ethical codes of the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, and the Reginald Lewis Museum, both situated in Baltimore, Maryland. Three key sites are isolated for discussion: the names of the museums, their approaches to the topic of the Middle Passage, and lynching. While both museums have made important cultural contributions to the public memorialization of highly charged subjects, the Great Blacks in Wax emerges as the more radical institution, closely in touch with the dynamic and creative museum aesthetic of the wider Black Atlantic Diaspora, and of Brazil in particular. [source] Relativism, Absolutism, and ToleranceMETAPHILOSOPHY, Issue 4 2003Hye-Kyung Kim Abstract: A common view is that relativism requires tolerance. We argue that there is no deductive relation between relativism and tolerance, but also that relativism is not incompatible with tolerance. Next we note that there is no standard inductive relation between relativism and tolerance,no inductive enumeration, argument to the best explanation, or causal argument links the two. Two inductive arguments of a different sort that link them are then exposed and criticized at length. The first considers relativism from the objective point of view ,of the universe', the second from the subjective point of view of the relativist herself. Both arguments fail. There is similarly no deductive relation between absolutism and tolerance,neither entails the other,and no inductive connection of any sort links the two. We conclude that tolerance, whether unlimited or restricted, is independent of both relativism and absolutism. A metaethical theory that says only that there is one true or valid ethical code, or that there is a plurality of equally true or valid ethical codes, tells us nothing about whether we should be tolerant, much less how tolerant we should be. [source] | ||||||||||