Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ethics/archive1

Ethics

Featured article candidates/Ethics/archive1

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. It examines competing theories about how people should act in general and in specific domains while considering the assumptions on which the theories rest. Thanks to 750h+ for encouraging this nomination and all the helpful suggestions during their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink

Big fan of the subject matter, so I thought I’d review it, especially as I have an ongoing FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Hilary/archive1 - so it would only be ethical to review this.

Hello Hurricanehink, thanks for doing the ethical thing

and reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now! Thanks for all of the fixes and/or explanations, that all makes sense. Happy to support now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvement ideas and your support! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I’m sure others are gonna mention that an image at the top-right would be nice for the page, like Aristotle, but at the same time I get not having one.
I agree, it would be nice to have an image but I'm not aware of a representative image of ethics in general. Using an image of a philosopher for a general topic article can be tricky because it may favor a specific tradition. Maybe we could use the scales of justice but this is not that typically used for ethics per se. The image in Ethics#Basic_concepts was used earlier as the lead image but it was stated in the peer review that it was too complicated for the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Ethics or moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral phenomena.” - thats a bit self referential. Philosophical study could probably just be “study”, but I’m not a fan of just linking “moral” and letting the wiki link do the lifting. The second sentence of the lead is better, since that’s a better Explain-it-like-I’m-5 description for the topic.
I moved the part about "moral philosophy" to the next sentence to make it less self-referential. I kept the "philosophical" to distinguish ethics form the non-philosophical study of moral phenomena, like moral psychology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”It is usually divided into three major fields: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.” - the “usually” sticks out to me (as does “fields”). Perhaps something like “The primary branches of ethics include…” I think “branch” is better than “field”, since that’s used in normative and metaethics articles.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, for example, by exploring the moral implications of the universal principles discovered in normative ethics within a specific domain.” - not sure if I’m reading it wrong, but is the “for example” needed?
This corresponds to the top-down methodology which is useful to establish the connection with normative ethics. With the "for example", we are on the safe side since some theorists also use a bottom-up methodology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Moral psychology is a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in morality, such as moral reasoning and the formation of moral character.” Three mentions of “moral” plus “morality.” Is there any way you could rewrite a bit to not use the five letters “moral” so many times? Like, could moral reasoning and moral character be piped to just “reasoning” and “character”?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

The fourth paragraph seems like a repeat of the lead and what comes later, so it seems pretty redundant to mention normative/applied/metaethics again, particularly since you don’t go into the definition of “normative” or “meta.”
I shortened the passage and merged it into the first paragraph. I don't think we can fully remove it since the lead section is supposed to summarize sourced text in the body of the article and the other sections don't discuss this division. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was briefly looking for the etymology, and I think that should be higher up in the definition section.
I moved it up as the third paragraph, which fits well since the following paragraph also discusses terminological issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normative

”For example, given the particular impression that it is wrong to set a child on fire for fun, normative ethics aims to find more general principles that explain why this is the case, like the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent, which may itself be explained in terms of a more general principle.” - eek, well, of course! As for why I brought this up, is the “for fun” part needed? Like, I’m not sure if it only applies as normative ethics if the argument is whether it is wrong to have fun doing that, or if it’s just wrong in general. Also, “given the particular impression that it is wrong” feels a bit off, but I’m not sure a better way to word it. Maybe it could be shorter and carry the same message? Like, “For example, the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent explains why it is wrong to set a child on fire.” I feel like it has the same message, but it’s clearer and more succinct.
The example is taken from Kagan 1998 p. 1, which explicitly mentions that it is done "for the mere pleasure". The difficulty here is probably to find a concrete example where everyone agrees. Without the "for fun", there could be cases where it is acceptable, possibly if it is not done for pleasure but to prevent a highly contagious supervirus in child from spreading. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”One difficulty for systems with several basic principles is that these principles may conflict with each other in some cases and lead to ethical dilemmas.” Such as the Trolley problem? I feel like it’s one of the best known ethical dilemmas, but maybe that’s just because I watched The Good Place. I see it appears later under “moral knowledge”, but it might be useful earlier in the article.
I usually try not to repeat examples in the same article. The prime example for this one would be David Ross and his prima facie duties. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but if we wanted, we could include an example along the lines of the second paragraph of The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Different theories in normative ethics suggest different principles as the foundation of morality.” - try rewording to avoid saying “different” twice
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”A more recently developed view additionally considers the distribution of value: It states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.” - recently as of when? 2020s? 20th century? After the fall of the Roman Empire?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you to for “very unlikely” and “very limited knowledge” under the types subsection? The “very” feels borderline opinionated.
Mainly to emphasize. I removed them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image caption: “Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the founding fathers of utilitarianism.” - is there a source calling them the founding fathers? It feels a bit opinionated right now. A more neutral caption would be “Portraits of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who developed the field of utilitarianism.”
I added a source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Utilitarianism was initially formulated by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by John Stuart Mill.” - some date reference might be nice. Was this randomly out of nowhere, or part of a broader philosophical trend of the 1700s?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Some critics of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that it is a "philosophy of swine" whose focus on the intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in sensory pleasures.” - few issues here. First, you should attribute the quote, if it’s even necessary at all to refer it to swine (I’m guessing an oblique reference to pigs having long lasting orgasms?) It feels a bit out of place without the context. Also, could you avoid saying “pleasure” twice in the same sentence?
I removed the reference to swine and reformulated the passage to avoid the word repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Today, there are many variations of utilitarianism, including the difference between act and rule utilitarianism and between maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.” - I’m not a fan of using “today”. Is that going to change to yesterday in 24 hours? I’ll have to Chex back and find out :P Alternately, perhaps something like “In the centuries since Bentham and Mill, variations of utilitarianism have developed, including…”
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”For example, according to David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.” - maybe provide some context for who Ross is? You did that for Bentham and Mill, so that would be helpful. Also, maybe get rid of “for example” if you add something like “According to Scottish philosopher David Ross” (or however you think he needs to be introduced)
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t get into the difference of agent vs patient centered. Is that patient, like, having patience? Or a doctor’s patient?
I tried to clarify the relevant passages. They now read Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the person who acts and the duties they have ... Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affect by actions the rights they have. Should we add a footnote to clarify the differences between patient as being affected vs having patience vs a doctor's patient? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth adding a pic of Kant?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Divine command theory sees God as the source of morality.” - as an atheist, I’d rather not have “God” used here so matter of factly. Could you reword it to make it more neutral? God isn’t even linked here, and it’s written as if it’s an accepted fact that God exists.
I reformulated the passage to not imply God's existence in wikivoice. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaethics

”Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other” - how come these are italicized?
This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we refer to them as terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”This position can be understood in analogy to Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that the magnitude of physical properties like mass, length, and duration depends on the frame of reference of the observer.” - idk if this is needed. I thought the previous sentence made complete sense already, and then when I got here I was wondering why it was here.
I moved it to an explanatory footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”An influential debate among moral realists is between naturalism and non-naturalism.” - you don’t really get into the debate, so is “influential” appropriate?
I slightly reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under Cognitivism and non-cognitivism - what do you mean by “truth-apt”? I don’t think you used that term before.
This is explained in the next sentence. I merged the two sentences to make this clear. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Another thought experiment examines the moral implications of abortion by imagining a situation in which a person gets connected without their consent to an ill violinist. It explores whether it would be morally permissible to sever the connection within the next nine months even if this would lead to the violinist's death.” - ok this needs way more context. You should probably mention that the thought experiment is that it’s a pregnant ill violinist apparently? I was quite confused for a bit why it suddenly turned musical.
I added an extra sentence to clarify that this is an analogy about the relation between mother and fetus without any fetuses present in the imagined situation. The musical turn is indeed confusing. This is part of the original formulation of the thought experiment but it's not essential that it is a violinist. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Applied ethics

Why is military ethics bolded in the middle of the paragraph?
This is because of the redirect per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. I added a corresponding comment

Related fields

”For instance, the question of how nurses think about the ethical implications of abortion belongs to descriptive ethics.” - why nurses and not doctors who would actually be administering the procedure?
Because that's the example of descriptive ethics used in the source. With a corresponding source about doctors, we could also change it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

Some of this is covered elsewhere in the article, which makes me wonder, perhaps this should be the second main section, after “Definition”? The article on philosophy, for example, starts with “Etymology” and has a history section before getting into the branches.
In principle, it could be done. Many overview works on ethics focus on the branches, concepts, and schools of ethics rather than the chronological development of the discipline. This indicates that the history is not the most important part of this article and should not come right at the beginning. Another difficulty would be that the history section uses various concepts that are explained in the other sections. If we wanted to have the history first, we might have to include a more detailed discussion of them already there, which could lead to various repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment. It’s a long read, at 8,941 words. Considering that this is an overview of the subject, and the many many links to various topics, I feel that the article should be condensed wherever possible. Perhaps remove redundant examples. Or, like the stuff in the history section that’s repeated elsewhere, you could trim it by having the history section first, and then removing the duplicate mentions of certain people.

Given the scope of the topic, I think we are not doing too bad length-wise. For a comparison, we are still below the 9000 mark of WP:SIZERULE. Except for the big names like Kant and Bentham, I don't think there is much overlap between the history and the rest. I'll keep a lookout for opportunities to condense the material as I respond to other reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciated your work on the article, and I enjoyed the read, so it’s my ethical duty to finally wrap up my review that I’ve been working on for… several hours. So here it is. Lemme know if you have any questions, @Phlsph7:. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for your indepth review and the helpful suggestions. I implemented most and I hope I didn't miss any. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke

Amazing you've tackled this article! First impressions are good. Except for a small module on morality among primates at uni and failing to read the The Ethics of Ambiguity, I know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard anything you're not sure about / disagree with.

In the lead, the order is applied ethics before meta-ethics. Would it make sense to follow this in the article too? Metaethics is a more scary difficult subject, so we may want to start easier in the body too.
There has already been some discussion on the section order on the talk page and the peer review. Initially, meta-ethics was first to go from abstract to concrete. Then, because of the difficulty of its topic, it was moved to come after applied ethics. Then it was requested to have it before applied ethics since it "deals with much more general issues likely to be of interest to more readers". I don't feel strongly either way since there are good arguments for each approach. The order in the lead section was mainly chosen because it's easier to present the topics this way in a single paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead / definition Moved to the talk page.
Metaethics Moved to talk page.
Related fields Moved to talk page.
Normative ethics Moved to talk page.
Applied ethics Moved to talk page.

As a general note: I'm moving in the direction of a support, but do want to do a second read to see if I can come up with more ideas on how to make the article understandable to a sufficiently broad audience. In particular, the bits around Kant are tough to explain, and not quite there yet in my view. I'll be on holiday, busy with work, and then hosting parents, so I might not come back till the 8th of July. I don't think I'll forget, but ping me if I do. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear that the article is moving in the right direction. I hope you enjoy your small wiki holiday. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do about the subsection "Kantianism" and I hope we can overcome this stumbling block. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second read

Have been listening to In Our Time over the holidays and their episodes on moral philosophy over the last years. They were all about individuals of the wartime quartet (embarrasing red link, but Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch etc), so hope I can say slightly more sensible things on the second read on the topic of language and virtue ethics.

The main branches of ethics include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics. --> Do we need both "main" and "include" (rather than are). Are there further main branches?
This is the most common division but some theorists prefer a different approach. Using this more careful formulation avoids upsetting them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their individual desires. --> is individual needed in the sentences? their desires may be sufficient.
I removed the term. It was added to emphasize the contrast with "universal principles" but it's not necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It asks whether moral statements can be true, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. --> the examples --> I wonder if the first example makes sense for those who have not been schooled in truth tables and with a basic background in logic. Maybe the example of whether there are objective moral statements is more accessible. I find the second example somewhat vague to. What does it refer to?
For the first example, I used objective moral facts instead. The second example refers to what is discussed in the subsection Moral knowledge, that is, foundationalism, coherentism, and the like. We could use a more specific example, but that would negatively impact generality. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtue theorists see the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality. --> A pedantic point, but the episode on Philippa Foot made a distinction between a value theorist (who does the theory) and a value ethicist (who believe the above). Feel free to ignore, as alternative wording may make things uglier.
I'm not sure that this distinction is generally accepted but it is an interesting point. I changed our formulation to "Virtue ethics" to be on the safe side without introducing verbal gymnastics. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics is closely connected to value theory, which studies the nature and types of value. --> This feels tautological. Can we say anything concrete about this?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Descriptive ethics provides value-neutral descriptions of the dominant moral codes and beliefs in different societies and considers their historical dimension. --> do we need the word value-neutral here? I don't think pure value-neutral discriptions exists, as most words in language are not perfectly neutral. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the term. Its main point was emphasize that descriptive ethicists try not to pick sides about which moral code is correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks. That's a support from me. Hope that a new reviewer will also look at how to simplify and make the article more concrete. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this in-depth review and the many improvement suggestions to make the article more accessible! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

File:Head of Aristotle.jpg, File:EMB - Buddha stehend.jpg, and File:Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg are all CC-BY-SA photos of a PD statue.
File:Jeremy Bentham by Henry William Pickersgill detail.jpg, File:John Stuart Mill by London Stereoscopic Company, c1870.jpg, File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg, File:Little boy.jpg, File:1914 George Edward Moore (cropped).jpg are all PD photos.
File:Philippa Foot 1939.jpg is not PD in the US. I've nominated it for deletion.
File:JuergenHabermas.jpg is CC-BY-SA
File:Trolley Problem.svg is CC-BY-SA
File:Cesarean section.jpg is CC-BY-SA
File:Battery hens -Bastos, Sao Paulo, Brazil-31March2007.jpg is CC-BY
File:Deontic square.svg is CC-BY

Alt-text is good. Images are directly applicable to the subject. Besides the Philippa Foot image, all seems good here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks for your image review and for catching the problem with the image of Philippa Foot. I removed the image and found a way to include an image of Simone de Beauvoir instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on image review. Looks good, thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by: Don't have time for a full review, but saw this while reading the page which stuck out and thought I'd add a comment An exception is J. L. Mackie's error theory, which combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts - all error theory is an exception, not just that espoused by J. L. Mackie. Maybe Mackie should be mentioned in the history section instead. Relatedly Moral skeptics reject the idea that moral knowledge is possible by arguing that people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior isn't that what they're arguing for, not the argument itself? I guess there isn't room to include questions about our access to moral facts or the (non)explanatory role of ethical concepts, but this could be worded better at least. Shapeyness (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shapeyness and thanks for taking a look at the article. I moved Mackie to the history section and I switched the explanation in the sentence on moral skeptics around. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phlsph7, that fixes both of those. Shapeyness (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Is there a logic why some page numbers are linked and others aren't, and some references give sections and others page numbers? I don't think that Springer DOI links need archives, and I am not sure that Google Books archives are useful, either. Some books with ISBN links have retrieval dates and others don't. Looks like sources are from prominent university publishers and journals ... but I notice that they seem to be mostly Western sources; even if sources about non-Western ethics are used they seem to be Western sources. Can't speak much about whether the sources picked are representative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I usually use section titles for web sources and page numbers for books and journals. For some books in ebook format, I also use section numbers if they do not have page numbers or if the page numbers depend on the reading device. If I'm aware of a Google Books page offering a preview of the page, I usually add a link to it. But this is not possible for all books, which is why some page numbers have links while others don't.

I removed the Springer DOI archives. Let me know if you think the Google Books archive links also need to be removed. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically, so all the links would be re-added the next time it runs. I count 91 archived Google Books links so removing them by hand each time after IABot runs would be time-intensive.

Some books with an ISBN have a website added in the template, for example, because the website provides a preview of the book. These books have access dates for the website. Access dates are also automatically added by IABot. I included several sources from non-Western publishers before the nomination, such as Sinha 2014, Satyanarayana 2009, Nadkarni 2011, Murthy 2009, Fernando 2010, Dalal 2010, Dalai Lama 2007, Armour 2001, Junru 2019, Ntuli 2002, and Pera & Tonder 2005. High-quality English philosophy sources from non-Western publishers are a little hard to find but I can try to find more in case the current ones are not sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]