Best 1285 quotes in «ethics quotes» category

Only a self capable of being jolted out of its mundane complacency is up to the task of both hearing what repair demands and helping to invent new responses to harms that no preexisting remedy fully comprehends.

Only those with a conscience can find an action unconscionable.

Only when the education would be embedded with moral values, the character and conscience of an individual would arise.

On reflection, it is clear why the world’s great religions specifically and clearly protect anymals from cruelty at the hands of humanity—we are more powerful, and human beings have demonstrated across time that we are likely to exploit and abuse anymals for our purposes. Anymals depend on special religious protections to protect them against an often self-absorbed humanity. Indeed, even in light of this strong collection of core religious teachings on behalf of anymals, they remain the most cruelly abused and widely exploited individuals throughout the industrialized world, and beyond.

On the ethics of war the Quran and the New Testament are worlds apart. Whereas Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, the Quran tells us, 'Whoso commits aggression against you, do you commit aggression against him' (2:194). The New Testament says nothing about how to wage war. The Quran, by contrast, is filled with just-war precepts. Here war is allowed in self-defense (2:190; 22:39), but hell is the punishment for killing other Muslims (4:93), and the execution of prisoners of war is explicitly condemned (47:4). Whether in the abstract is is better to rely on a scripture that regulates war or a scripture that hopes war away is an open question, but no Muslim-majority country has yet dropped an atomic bomb in war.

On the other hand, the moral law, although it gives no such prospect, does provide a fact absolutely inexplicable from any data of the world of sense or from the whole compass of the theoretical use of reason, and this fact points to a pure intelligible world―indeed, it defines it positively and enable us to know something of it, namely a law. This law gives to the sensible world, as sensuous nature (as this concerns rational beings), the form of an intelligible world, i.e., the form of supersensuous nature, without interfering with the mechanism of the former. Nature, in the widest sense of the word, is the existence of things under laws. The sensuous nature of rational beings in general is their existence under empirically conditioned laws, and therefore it is, from the point of view of reason, heteronomy. The supersensuous nature of the same beings, on the other hand, is their existence according to laws which are independent of all empirical conditions and which therefore belong to the autonomy of pure reason. And since the laws, according to which the existence of things depends on cognition, are practical, supersensuous nature, so far as we can form a concept of it, is nothing else than nature under the autonomy of the pure practical reason. The law of this autonomy is the moral law, and it, therefore, is the fundamental law of supersensuous nature and of a pure world of the understanding, whose counterpart must exist in the world of sense without interfering with the laws of the latter. The former could be called the archetypal world (*natura archetypa*) which we know only by reason; the latter, on the other hand, could be called the ectypal world (*natura ectypa*), because it contains the possible effect of the idea of the former as the determining ground of the will." ―from_Critique of Practical Reason_. Translated, with an Introduction by Lewis White Beck, p. 44.

Our ancestors lived in groups of no more than a few hundred people, and those on the other side of a river or mountain range might as well have been living in a separate world. We developed ethical principles to help us to deal with problems within our community, not to help those outside it. The harms that it was considered wrong to cause were generally clear and well defined. We developed inhibitions against, and emotional responses to, such actions, and these instinctive or emotional reactions still form the basis for much of our moral thinking.

Our Blessed Lord left the world without leaving any written message. His doctrine was Himself. Ideal and History were identified in Him. The truth that all other ethical teachers proclaimed, and the light that they gave to the world, was not IN them, but OUTSIDE them. Our Divine Lord, however, identified Divine Wisdom with Himself. It was the first time in history that it was ever done, and it has never been done since.

Our creed [atheism] is indeed a queer creed. You others, Christians (and similar people), consider our ethics much inferior, indeed abominable. There is that little difference. We adhere to ours in practice, you don't.

Our environment encourages us not to be philosophers but partisans.

Our fights must be rooted in experiences, in stories, and in anecdotes. People remember these more than sterile numbers or facts. Myths are powerful magic and can turn enemies into friends. In a world where too many still tell stories that some are illegal and that to be free we must control the movement of others, the work of making new myths is essential.

Our fight was not for ownership of a fertile piece of land. It was about defending the sanctity of ethics and fairness and dignity --- about defending humanity. Those are the values worth fighting for. If we forsake those very values in war, we become the very thing we are fighting against. We become them. Then what do we have left to fight for?

Our gods, if we choose to believe in them, must be forced to live up to ethics that far surpass our own human standards. If they fall short of the ethical conditions we place upon ourselves, what use are they to us - except to rationalize our own failures?

Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.

Our stable and eternal verities are being challenged. There's a kind of postmodern breakdown in journalism. The breadth of information sources and the speed of transmission are growing; but the traditional gravity of news has eroded. -Jin Yongquan

Our response to the factory farm is ultimately a test of how we respond to the powerless, to the most distant, to the voiceless - it is a test of how we act when no one is forcing us to act one way or another. Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.

...our ultimate moral principles can become so completely accepted by us, that we treat them, not as universal imperatives but as matters of fact; they have the same obstinate indubitability.

Our theoretical and practical parameters of morality are hugely based on our needs.

Overall, becoming a carbon-neutral country would involve changes in our behaviour, but these are modest compared with the changes that will be forced upon us if we do nothing.

Pacifists have usually regarded the use of violence as absolutely wrong, irrespective of its consequences. This, like other ‘no matter what’ prohibitions, assumes the validity of the distinction between acts and omissions. Without this distinction, pacifists who refuse to use violence when it is the only means of preventing greater violence would be responsible for the greater violence they fail to prevent.

Paul Chehade is dedicated to serves the unfortunate, regardless of a person's religion, race, ethnicity, or gender, as a demonstration of God's unconditional love for all people, helping communities worldwide. Ethical junction making choices easy.

People eat meat and think they will become strong as an ox, forgetting that the ox eats grass.

People don't hate other people because they're different. They hate themselves because they're weak, and they take it out on those who are powerless.

Peace is found when people stand for morality and reject culture. Defend freedom at all costs and at all times and peace will rule the world instead of tyrants.

Perhaps we shouldn't be displeased with the 'environmental ethics' we have or the 'business ethics' or the 'political ethics' or any of the myriad of other codes of conduct suggested by our actions. After all, we've created them. We've created the stories that allow them to exist and flourish. They didn't come out of nowhere. They didn't arrive from another planet.

Plato in both the Gorgias and the Republic looked back to Socrates and asserted that "it is better to suffer tortures on the rack than to have a soul burdened with the guilt of doing evil." Aristotle does not confront this position directly: he merely emphasizes that it is better still both to be free from having done evil and to be free from being tortured on the rack.

Photographs had the advantage of uniting two contradictory features. Their credentials of objectivity were inbuilt. Yet they always had, necessarily, a point of view.

Plants are not like us. They are different in critical and fundamental ways. As I catalog the differences between plants and animals, the horizon stretches out before me faster than I can travel and forces me to acknowledge that perhaps I was destined to study plants for decades only in order to more fully appreciate that they are beings we can never truly understand. Only when we begin to grasp this deep otherness can we be sure we are no longer projecting ourselves onto plants. Finally we can begin to recognize what is actually happening. Our world is falling apart quietly. Human civilization has reduced the plant, a four-million-year-old life form, into three things: food, medicine, and wood...

Pod kvazi-mitskim totalitetom tehničke racionalnosti prijeti nam inteligencija bez patosa, inteligencija kojoj nije potreban nikakav jezik koji ima svoj vlastiti smisao jer ionako sve funkcionira bez bilo kakvog proturječja; ta inteligencija ne zna za spomen jer nije ugrožena nikakvim zaboravom: čovjek kao kompjuterizirana inteligencija bez osjetljivosti na patnju i bez morala, ukratko: čovjek kao rapsodija nedužnosti jednoga glatko funkcionirajućeg stroja. Treba li doista to biti čovjek nakon smrti čovjeka?

Pleasure is the Root of All Good

Politics exists in every organization, We can not deny

Poor feeling hijacks thinking for self-deception: to hide harsh truths, avoid action, evade responsibility, and, as the existentialists might put it, flee from freedom. Thus, poor feeling is a kind of moral failing, indeed, the deepest kind, and virtue principally consists in correcting and refining our emotions and the values that they reflect. To feel the right thing is to do the right thing, without any particular need for conscious thought or effort.

Population growth is not a reason against giving aid but a reason for reconsidering the kind of aid to give.

Principles that drive equilibrium in nature's design also power human design.

... primitive times had required primitive obedience, that later generations evolved to the point where parents offered themselves as sacrifice - as in the dark knights of the ovens which pocked old earth history - and that current generations had to deny any command for sacrifice. Sol had written that whatever God now took in human consciousness - whether as a mere manifestation of the subconscious in all its revanchist needs or as a more conscious attempt at philosophical and ethical evolution - humankind could no longer agree to offer up sacrifice in God's name. Sacrifice and the agreement to sacrifice had written human history in blood.

Pre-modern forms of authority , based predominantly upon value-rationality and natural law, are here succeeded by legal-rational forms of domination and by the rule of instrumental reason. With this, religious beliefs and ultimate ideals gradually recede from (public) life as they are disenchanted by the claims of 'rational' science and are replaced increasingly by the idealized pursuit of secular, material ends. This leads to a world in which questions of meaning and value disappear from the public arena, and in which the scope for creative action and for the pursuit of ultimate values becomes increasingly restricted. And in this regard, the twin processes of cultural and social rationalization lead to the same end: to a condition of nihilism in which the highest 'ultimate' values are devalued, or devalue themselves, and hence, for the most part, are no longer able to guide social action, which itself becomes, in turn, increasingly routinized and mundane.

Principles in a poor is admirable as politeness in a prince.

Pro Life’ or ‘Right to Life’ movement is misnamed. Those who protest against abortion but dine regularly on the bodies of chickens, pigs and calves can hardly claim to have concern for ‘life’ as such. Their concern about embryos and fetuses suggests only a biased concern for the lives of members of our own species.

Pure analysis puts at our disposal a multitude of procedures whose infallibility it guarantees; it opens to us a thousand different ways on which we can embark in all confidence; we are assured of meeting there no obstacles; but of all these ways, which will lead us most promptly to our goal? Who shall tell us which to choose? We need a faculty which makes us see the end from afar, and intuition is this faculty. It is necessary to the explorer for choosing his route; it is not less so to the one following his trail who wants to know why he chose it.

Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith, and the naive faith requires necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications which are provided by the myth-maker to keep ordinary person on course.

Raging over something that is invaluable can portray an individual's sense of immaturity and lack of understanding about his or her actual needs for survival.

Putting yourself in the place of others...is what thinking ethically is all about.

Rose pivoted. “Alainn, can I ask you something about ethics?” Alainn nodded, slowly. “Sure.” Rose’s inhuman eyes met hers, and she asked, “Would you die to save a million people?

Religion and ethics were not always - or even frequently - mutually compatible. The demands of religious absolutism or fundamentalism or rampaging relativism often deflected the worst aspects of contemporary culture or prejudices rather than a system which both man and God could live under with a sense of real justice.

Religion, by its very nature as an untestable belief in undetectable beings and an unknowable afterlife, disables our reality checks. It ends the conversation. It cuts off inquiry: not only factual inquiry, but moral inquiry. Because God's law trumps human law, people who think they're obeying God can easily get cut off from their own moral instincts. And these moral contortions don't always lie in the realm of theological game-playing. They can have real-world consequences: from genocide to infanticide, from honor killings to abandoned gay children, from burned witches to battered wives to blown-up buildings.

Right and wrong isn’t a matter of ethics, rather it’s the geography in which you reside and whose control you’re under. Tallinn Manual 2.0 is based largely on western international humanitarian law.

Romantic enthusiasm lifts the good aloft and removes it into the dim distance of the incomparable and unattainable; at the same time it portrays the good in a human countenance out of which it looks at us and we can look back at it, face to face, in admiration and ecstasy, and stretch out our arms towards it. Thus the moral good is represented in human, and at the same time superhuman, form; it is of our own kind, and yet above our kind; it confronts us, but makes no demands. IT is not really a standard and lacks the power to issues commandments. Both are given at once: the ethical which one would like to love; and the passive, the romantic, in which one wants to live. As a substitute for constant activity demanded by the ethical commandment, we have adoration in which the romantic impression of the moment in vented, and yearning which need only admire and enjoy but not achieve anything.

¿Sabes cuál es la única obligación que tenemos en esta vida? Pues no ser imbéciles. La palabra «imbécil» es más sustanciosa de lo que parece, no te vayas a creer. Viene del latín baculus que significa «bastón»: el imbécil es el que necesita bastón para caminar. Que no se enfaden con nosotros los cojos ni los ancianitos, porque el bastón al que nos referimos no es el que se usa muy legítimamente para ayudar a sostenerse y dar pasitos a un cuerpo quebrantado por algún accidente o por la edad. El imbécil puede ser todo lo ágil que se quiera y dar brincos como una gacela olímpica, no se trata de eso. Si el imbécil cojea no es de los pies, sino del ánimo: es su espíritu el debilucho y cojitranco, aunque su cuerpo pegue unas volteretas de órdago. Hay imbéciles de varios modelos, a elegir: a) El que cree que no quiere nada, elque dice que todo le da igual, el que vive en un perpetuo bostezo o en siesta permanente, aunque tenga los ojos abiertos y no ronque. b) El que cree que lo quiere todo, lo primero que se le presenta y lo contrario de lo que se le presenta: marcharse y quedarse, bailar y estar sentado, masticar ajos y dar besos sublimes, todo a la vez. c) El que no sabe lo que quiere ni se molesta en averiguarlo. Imita los quereres de sus vecinos o les lleva la contraria porque sí, todo lo que hace está dictado por la opinión mayoritaria de los que le rodean: es conformista sin reflexión o rebelde sin causa. d) El que sabe que quiere y sabe lo que quiere y, más o menos, sabe por qué lo quiere pero lo quiere flojito, con miedo o con poca fuerza. A fin de cuentas, termina siempre haciendo lo que no quiere y dejando lo que quiere para mañana, a ver si entonces se encuentra más entonado. e) El que quiere con fuerza y ferocidad, en plan bárbaro, pero se ha engañado a sí mismo sobre lo que es la realidad, se despista enormemente y termina confundiendo la buena vida con aquello que va a hacerle polvo. Todos estos tipos de imbecilidad necesitan bastón, es decir, necesitan apoyarse en cosas de fuera, ajenas, que no tienen nada que ver con la libertad y la reflexión propias. Siento decirte que los imbéciles suelen acabar bastante mal, crea lo que crea la opinión vulgar. Cuando digo que «acaban mal» no me refiero a que terminen en la cárcel o fulminados por un rayo (eso sólo suele pasar en las películas), sino que te aviso de que suelen fastidiarse a sí mismos y nunca logran vivir la buena vida esa que tanto nos apetece a ti y a mí. Y todavía siento más tener que informarte qué síntomas de imbecilidad solemos tener casi todos; vamos, por lo menos yo me los encuentro un día sí y otro también, ojalá a ti te vaya mejor en el invento... Conclusión: ¡alerta!, ¡en guardia!, ¡la imbecilidad acecha y no perdona!

...sa vie modeste est une maitrise et non une privation

Relationships must be fostered as far as possible and maintained, and thus a morbid transference can be avoided.