Not exact matches
The
ethical problems are obvious: You're changing the terms of discourse
without the other
person agreeing to do that.
It is possible to have an
ethical life
without resorting to invisible sky
people and to make law
without having to invoke some guy living in the earths core as somehow making
people behave badly.
Humans are capable of forming
ethical, well - reasoned decisions
without needing to perpetuate such incoherent, closed - minded fantasy... I swear, christians are among the most frightened, baby - brained
people on the planet!
Many
people are inclined to agree that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia is an
ethical fiction: why let an anencephalic infant, born
without a brain, starve to death, prolonging the parents» agony, when the baby could be painlessly killed?
A black theologian can not enter into the quest for personhood and peoplehood of his or her
people without having his or her
ethical concern sharpened.
As for Pastor Mike and his atheist registry, like so many other strongly religious
people I've encountered, he's equating religion with morality, as if,
without religious belief (the right religious belief), you are incapable of possessing and living by a moral /
ethical code.
Furthermore, it has insisted — and rightly — that Christianity is a faith and not a philosophical or
ethical system; it is a faith in which affirmations are made about an historical
person in whom God is believed to be specially at work; it has insisted that we have to do with a tradition which has been nourished by the lives of holy men and women, by saints and scholars, but which is based upon the gospel, whose grounding is in the scriptural record and witness and which therefore can not exist
without constant reference to that «deposit» of God's self - revelation.
«Most
people have a route or two routes and they become like an extension of the body and use those routes not for
ethical reasons but because it is the only way to get around London
without being late for meetings...»
But furthermore — and this is perhaps Darwin's greatest contribution — he developed a set of new principles that influence the thinking of every
person: the living world, through evolution, can be explained
without recourse to supernaturalism; essentialism or typology is invalid, and we must adopt population thinking, in which all individuals are unique (vital for education and the refutation of racism); natural selection, applied to social groups, is indeed sufficient to account for the origin and maintenance of altruistic
ethical systems; cosmic teleology, an intrinsic process leading life automatically to ever greater perfection, is fallacious, with all seemingly teleological phenomena explicable by purely material processes; and determinism is thus repudiated, which places our fate squarely in our own evolved hands.
Like Mr. Baker's earlier features «Starlet» and «Tangerine,» this movie insists on meeting
people on both sides of the screen where they are, on suspending judgment and extending compassion
without abandoning its
ethical grounding.
It's my experience that as long as a company operates within the law, intelligent
people can debate its
ethical stature from now until dividend day
without reaching a conclusion.
Artists
without ethical principles and something meaningful to share with humanity are not real artists they are just provokers who earn their fame by making
people experience intense visceral emotions.
Almost all the world's religions, basic human rights theories, and numerous other
ethical arguments hold that no
person has a right to greatly harm someone else
without their consent.
«We designers use to anesthetize ourselves with aesthetics
without ethical content and forget that our goal is to solve
people's problems.
But just because a senior
person merely reviewed and edited an opinion, brief or blog post - instead of actually researching and writing it - it doesn't translate that he or she has commited an
ethical violation (of course, plagiarism - the culpable act of passing off someone else's content as one's own
without the permission of the author - is an entirely different matter that is deserving of censure and liability).
But regardless of what profession a
person chooses to pursue, I argue that one should be able to seek advice from a spouse when facing an
ethical dilemma,
without being reprimanded.
We let
people buy crappy cars, exploding laptops, and lead - filled toys on an open market — why not cheap lawyers
without ethical handcuffs?
Answering questions with correct answers (by memorizing them
without actually learning and embedding them) does not a moral /
ethical person make, just as answering questions correctly in a driving school classroom does not a good, safe, defensive driver make.