Wikipedia:Peer review/Ethics/archive1

Ethics

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PJW

Hi Phlsph7,

Here are some comments more or less following the order of the article:

I would move the square of opposition that is currently the main article image down to Metaethics where at least some of these relations are discussed (but not all of them). I suspect that many readers will find it a bit dauntingly technical and confusing. If I have an idea for something that might work better, I will be sure to share it. For the article does need an image to display in search results.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the lead does not read well. There's just too much packed in. It might help to get all of applied ethics into one sentence. In this context, the names alone seem to me adequately descriptive.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph beginning As a philosophical discipline, ethics is usually divided should mention that this is a twentieth-century academic distinction not used by philosophers before then (even if many were, in fact, working within and across these sub-fields). A few minutes of Internet sleuthing failed to turn up specifics, but this note on the article's framing of the entire topic deserves to be acknowledged.
Done. It was not until the 20th century that metaethics was acknowledged as a main branch of ethics so it should be uncontroversial that the division was not commonly used before that. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why no etymology of "morality" to accompany that of "ethics"?
We could add an explanation but I think it's better to cover this in the article Morality. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moral theory redirects here, and the last sentence of the preceding paragraph uses the terms "morality" and "moral judgment". Quite independently of its significance for the article, it's jarring (at least to me) not to get the etymology for the other term, which is used throughout the article. If there's a reason not to add it, I'd consider removing the paragraph entirely. My preference, though, would be to add a sentence on "morality" sourced to the OED.

Also, separate point: it had not occurred to me to check for another article titled Morality. I was pleasantly surprised to find far less overlap than I expected. Should the top of the article include This article is about.... For..., see Morality.? Patrick (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an explanation of the etymology of morality. In regard to the Template:About: this is usually employed if the same term has a different use that is not covered in that article. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the "About", I would consider checking to see if there is another template—or else just invoking WP:IAR. A lot of stuff I see listed in this way – that is, beyond a general disambiguation link – looks to me like at least borderline REFSPAM. In this case, however, I think readers might genuinely benefit from notes at the top of both articles informing them of the existence of the other. Patrick (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template for distinguishing concepts is Template:About-distinguish. But this only works if there is a clearcut distinction between the two concepts, which is not the case here. The subtle overlap and difference between ethics and morality is explained in the section "Definition". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way philosophers use "practical" is somewhat unnatural to non-philosophers. It might be worth adding something like, "just meaning having to do with action" or "in contrast to theoretical", on first usage of "practical reason" and "practical wisdom".
I replaced the expression in the lead. The first mentions of "practical reason" and "practical wisdom" in the body of the article are already accompanied by explanations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Header "Divine command theory, contractualism, and discourse ethics" suggests to me that these theories have more in common than they do. Maybe something like "Other deontological theories" instead.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider mentioning "excellence" as another translation of aretē. Today the word "virtue" generally refers more narrowly to moral virtues as articulated by the world's religions (even if in secularized form).
Which sentence/paragraph are you referring to? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add this to "Virtue ethics", probably to the first paragraph. For not all the virtues Aristotle discusses are moral virtues (e.g., wit, bravery, mildness, theoretical contemplation). MacIntyre opens the concept up even further in a way that encompasses, for instance, artistic and athletic excellence. Patrick (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote to mention the Greek term and its translation. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ancient Greek word for virtue is arête, which can also denote excellence. should be something more like The ancient Greek word "arête" contains the English senses of both "virtue" and "excellence". (For this reason, I also continue to think it belongs in the body of the article. The primary English sense of "virtue" is narrower than the sense of Aristotle's arête.) Patrick (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (in a slightly reformulated version). Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, "happiness" is misleading for eudaimonia. Maybe mention that "well-being" and "human flourishing" are preferred by many philosophers.
I assume this is about the wikilink in the sentence For Aristotle, a good life is associated with being happy by cultivating virtues and flourishing. I removed it. Flourishing is mentioned at the end of the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the last two paragraphs of "Virtue ethics". My concern is that most of us think about happiness as a subjective condition that fluctuates even just over the course of a day. Aristotle's concept, however, is intended to be more objective and enduring. I think it would be worth stating this explicitly (even if the details are a matter of ongoing scholarly debate). I don't see anything wrong with the current version, but I'm concerned that readers might come away with a distorted understanding that is too much about how a person feels. Patrick (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources on Aristotle and the Stoics: they themselves use the term "happiness". Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Happiness" might be the least bad English translation, but it is still misleading for Aristotle's "eudaimonia". For instance, the Terence Irwin translation of the EN uses "happiness", but it also notes in the introduction that this translation is "misleading" in the same paragraph it is introduced (p. xvii in the 2019 3rd ed.). Particularly in a context where it is being contrasted with, e.g., Mill or various forms of egoism, I think that Aristotle's distinctive meaning should be foregrounded in the article.

Also, separate point: Oosthuizen, Lucas M. (2002) does not appear to be a high-quality source in the context of this article. Patrick (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a better source. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is going to mention postmodern ethics, which I'm not sure it needs to, then it should give some kind of positive account. See, for instance, p. 15 of the Cambridge Companion to Postmoderism and the essay there discussed.
I added a short positive clarification along the lines of this source. I left the negative exposition since this aspect seems to get more attention in the academic literature. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. I don't object to a critical stance (concern for the Other only gets one so far), but just that it wasn't previously clear how this even qualified as an ethical position. Patrick (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A different approach is to use a bottom-up methodology, which relies on many observations of particular cases to arrive at an understanding of the moral principles relevant to this particular domain. = casuistry?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is environmental ethics standardly considered part of bioethics? I see that at least one source supports this, but my impression is that they are usually considered distinct (though obviously related). Minor point, obviously, but you might check this if you are not already sure.
I added two more sources. I'm not sure that everyone would agree but this is one common way to divide bioethics and our formulation is careful enough to not imply that this is the only way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would move Applied ethics to follow Meta-ethics, which deals with much more general issues likely to be of interest to more readers.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nietzsche describes nihilism as a massive cultural crisis. Are any of the sources calling him a "moral nihilist" by Nietzsche scholars? He is important to include, but the most salient aspects of his thought, to me, are his critique of "slave morality" (i.e., that of almost everyone who is not a genius) and the need for a "revaluation of all values".
This is supported by Dreier 2007. But the example is not essential so I removed it since it's quite possible that other scholars think differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did Hobbes actually present himself as offering an ethical theory? If not, then he probably should be removed from the history section.
Norman 2005 and Abelson & Nielsen 2006 each have several paragraphs dedicated to Hobbes. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add Hegel to the history section as instituting the distinction between morality and ethical life, the former restricted to a fairly narrow domain and the latter inextricably bound up with history and society. I would also mention Kierkegaard on the "teleological suspension of the ethical". Nietzsche should probably be mentioned as a critic of the Judaeo-Christian and Kantian moralities (among others).
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Natural law theory should probably be included somewhere in Normative ethics (see, e.g., [1]). Thomism, in particular, remains alive and well.
Aquinas's natural law ethics is currently discussed in the history section. Do think that, in addition to or instead of that, it should be discussed in the section "Normative ethics"? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that it should get a paragraph somewhere in "Normative ethics", either (anachronistically) as an other form of Deontological ethics or in the catch-all Others section at the end. Like contractualism and discourse ethics, it's positioned at the intersection of moral and political thought—and with a 2,000-year pedigree to boot. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution drew directly on the natural law tradition of the Roman Republic, MLK refers to Thomas Aquinas in "The Letter from Birmingham Jail", and the intuitions motivating this tradition inform many claims about human/basic/fundamental rights. This may be more of a U.S.-specific thing than I realize, but it's also (I think!) presupposed by a lot of international law.

To be clear, I do not suggest that this article is the place to go into all of that, but I mention it just to make a case for its inclusion as a living tradition with reference to more than just Catholic thought.

Thomas could then be mentioned in the History section as making "pagan philosophy" safe for Christians by way of the mammoth synthesis laid out in the Summa Theologiae. Or there are any number of other ways to nod to his historical influence without repeating the material about natural law. I'm sure that anything else emphasized by your preferred sources would be fine. Patrick (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short explanation to the metaethics section instead since, according to Murphy 2019a, the substantive normative claims of natural law ethics are controversial and not as central as its other claims. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the argument for including this under Metaethics, and I am inclined to agree that this might be better than putting it under Normative ethics. I continue to believe, however, that natural law deserves at least a paragraph of coverage not relegated to the History section.

Just shooting from the hip, I would guess that it's comparative neglect in academic debates in moral theory is probably a consequence of its strong connection to a controversial metaphysics; natural law theory comes or goes based upon your position on whether humans, as such, occupy a special place in the cosmos. So it's not going to play well with other more metaphysically neutral theories. But it is widely held by both philosophers and laypersons alike. Patrick (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more not insignificant nitpick: the article twice describes natural law as "created by God". For Thomas, however, God's immanence in Creation is presented as the Eternal Law, of which Natural Law is just our human mode of participation. Without strong sourcing to the contrary, the article should not suggest that God is some separate individual entity just willing things this way or that. Relying only on the sources already in use, this is supported by Murphy (2019) §1.1 and the sections of the Summa to which it refers. Patrick (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that creation automatically implies separation. The sources seem to support our word choice: from DeNicola 2018: "God's creation" and "God-given human nature"; from Murphy 2019a: "The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered", "God’s role as the giver of the natural law", "God’s choosing to bring into existence beings", "the natural law is given by God". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for checking. I'll be sure to look into it myself before making any further proclamations on this. It's quite possible I was taught a non-standard interpretation of eternal law. Patrick (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the topic of moral luck be mentioned somewhere? I'm genuinely not sure. But it was given quite a bit of attention in an intermediate ethics course I took at university.
I added a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, though, the article looks very good. Thanks as always for all your hard work!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patrick Welsh and thanks for doing this revew. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Phlsph7,

Apart from the comments I have just left, I am satisfied that my concerns (your responses to which I have not responded individually) have been adequately addressed by either your edits to the article or by the explanations you've provided above.

With respect to FAC, I very much do not love how much of this is sourced to tertiary sources (i.e., to those not by specialists and/or not peer-reviewed—however prestigious the press), rather than to secondary sources by subject-matter experts.

Feel free to cite me, however, as having no objections not already mentioned with respect to the comprehensiveness of the article's content or to its overall organization. Wherever folks land on the interpretation of the FA criteria, I believe readers will be well-served by this article.

Great work as usual, and hope my comments have been helpful —

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. With wide-scope articles, tertiary sources are often not avoidable and, if used in the right way, are usually not a problem for FA, see [2]. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome for the review. As to tertiary sources, I remain skeptical. But I leave it up to y'all to make that judgment for this article. I'm happy to step in to explain or clarify from this review, but I don't plan to weigh in directly at the FAC discussion.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]