Not exact matches
Still, the case against teleological ethics may here offer this response: Granting the difference between direct and indirect applications, this yields only the familiar
distinction between «act - teleology» and «rule - teleology, «3 is problematic for the following reason:
Social practices or patterns of social cooperation can not be validated teleologically without a comparative assessment of the good and evil consequences differing possible systems of rules or norms (for instance, differing sets of rights) are likely, if adopted, to pr
Social practices or patterns of
social cooperation can not be validated teleologically without a comparative assessment of the good and evil consequences differing possible systems of rules or norms (for instance, differing sets of rights) are likely, if adopted, to pr
social cooperation can not be validated teleologically without a comparative assessment of the good and evil consequences differing possible systems of rules or norms (for instance, differing sets of rights) are likely,
if adopted, to produce.
Within the common tradition, the meaning of the phrase becomes clear
if we make a necessary
distinction between authority and other forms of
social control; in particular, domination, manipulation, and persuasion.
If we both worship the same God, and live according to His will for us, the
distinction you make is purely a
social one.
Yet
if salvation is genuinely
social, then there can be no place for a
distinction that invites us to assume, for example, that we have ownership over our bodies and possessions in a way that is not under the discipline of the whole church.
Time will tell
if the Swedish
Social Democrats are able to adapt to the social and economic changes that made the distinction between insiders and outsiders so salient in the 1990s and
Social Democrats are able to adapt to the
social and economic changes that made the distinction between insiders and outsiders so salient in the 1990s and
social and economic changes that made the
distinction between insiders and outsiders so salient in the 1990s and 2000s.
It's as
if now the art and the image is not only reflecting a certain reality but somehow materialising it, in the same way that Amalia Ulman problematises the
distinction between the performance and the person in her
social media experiment in networked self - objectification, «Excellences & Perfections» (2014).
In regard to professional interactions with a lawyer who is a
social networking contact, 33 per cent of judicial officers who reported
social media use believe that it would be acceptable for a «LinkedIn contact» to appear before him / her... However, a small, yet clear,
distinction is made
if the lawyer is a «Facebook
It is a nonsense to try and draw a
distinction between mentioning one's office on a firm / chambers website, printed CV or on
social media — and such a prohibition plainly can not apply across the board (
if I told you I was a judge I'd have to kill you).
If we reject the
distinction between these two supposedly separate psychological systems and instead pay attention to what can and can not be rationally justified, it will be more evident that behavioral change imposed on us through nonrational means not only is more coercive than that which comes about through the rational evaluation of justifications, but also erodes our capacity to reflect rationally and critically on our
social world.