Deontology and the Decalogue of Opinion

With Perelman＇s Neo Rhetoric the ＂Rhetorical Empire＂ is built and with the contribution of Koorebyter＇s group this empire gets to its limits by including Opinion also in Natural Sciences. Concomitantly, within communication, the number and variety of opinions tend toward infinity. In this cultural context, a Deontology of Opinion is both possible and necessary. The first part establishes the theoretical frame of the issue on four axes： （1） the historical fate of Opinion; （2） the fundamental and specific Functors; （3） the relation between Certitude, Conviction, and Credence; （4） correctness, the second part presents 10 Deontological Rules of Opinion （out of the 18 possible）; and （5） it is a Code based on 10 Rules thus, a Decalogue. The Code presents each Rule, both in its positive （must） and negative （~must） form. Rules are first enunciated and then explained and illustrated. Being also a theory of Opinion, the paper can be considered a Meta-opinion. It can have four finalities： （1） one, purely theoretical, to be included among similar papers in the field; （2） a methodological one as it offers reference points for the elaboration of particular Deontological Codes; （3） a scientific one offering the background for sociologic researches of Opinion; and （4） an educational one aiming at forming correct （optimum） Opinions in various fields.

Understanding the Ethical Theories in Medical Practice

It is important to understand the basic of the ethical theories and how to utilize them to deal with the ethical dilemma in the medical practice. This article presents a brief review of three of famous philosophical theories of ethics, which may enrich our understanding and guide our behaviour in medical practice. Conclusion: There is no fully adequate moral theory which can singly explain all ethical or moral dilemmas and none of them also can singly explain all ethical or moral dilemmas.

Methodology of the Relationship between Bioethics, Philosophy, and Law

One can distinguish three levels in the integrative unity of knowledge and norms （assessments）, which is termed bioethics. The first level is theoretical. It is connected with the facts and truths. The second level deals with establishing of certain standards and rules of conduct, with the monitoring of their implementation and the assessment of the results of implementation/violation of norms. The third level is associated with individual behavior, formed on the basis of relevant knowledge （or lack of it, as is evident from the table）, and the rules governing its application. Theoretical Bioethics is an integral part of Philosophy---the practical Bioethics is directly related to Law and applied Bioethics deals with the personal standards of specific behavior in concrete situations. Social need for regulatory control of any activity with living entities has led to rapid development of practical Bioethics, while its philosophical content developed more slowly. This creates a conflict of norms and values, hampering the adoption of individual decisions now in the field of applied Bioethics. Deontologization of Bioethics can lead to the fact that it will lose its philosophical content and become a specific area of Law. This, in turn, leads to the dehumanization of Bioethics. It is therefore necessary to conduct a methodological analysis of the relationship of Philosophy, Bioethics and Law, the results of which will focus the researchers on the synchronization of the axiological, praxeological and ethical components of scientific research in order to preserve the intellectual integrity of Bioethics.

Theory-laden model of ethical applications and ethics of euthanasia

The primary aim of this paper is to critically evaluate the deductive model of ethical applications,which is based on normative ethical theories like deontology and consequentialism,and to show why a number of models have failed to furnish appropriate resolutions to practical moral problems.Here,for the deductive model,I want to call it a“Linear Mechanical Model”because the basic assumption of this model is that if a normative theory is sacrosanct,then the case is as it is.The conclusion derived from the case will also be correct,true and acceptable.However,traditional ethicists used to apply their ethical theories,but they did not know which moral theory was effective on the ground level of reality.The study will show readers how ethical theories are in conflict with each other in the case of euthanasia.In more precise words,“which ethical theories are said to be applied,meta-ethical or normative,or both for the resolution of ethical problems?If normative theories are said to be applied,how the application can take place when it is contrary to our experience,that(then)in a situation of moral crises,no one really applies a theory?”For that,my argument is the linear model has failed because it is rigid,often ignores the agents’intrinsic values,and has no space to amend it,no matter how bizarre the consequence is.Its alternative is the Inductive model.For that,the paper will take three moral principles(autonomy,beneficence including maleficence,and justice)of Beauchamp&Childress.This suggests us for resolving value-laden moral problems,we should consider some steps such as a)recognising moral issues to start with;b)developing the moral imagination;c)sharpening analytical/critical skills;d)testing out disagreements;e)effecting decisions and behavior;and f)implementation,closure,and process are of vital importance,in other words,it starts with the free and informed consensus of all interested parties,but this model also has been failed because the model could not give a systematic organization to their way of resolution.Here,my argument is that the inductive model provides resolution of the practical problem but ignores what is ethically obligatory,permissible,or wrong in that situation,and there are no appropriate suggestions in the case of a moral crisis.

Defending Moral Obligation: Duterte's Dauntless War Against Drugs

As the mainstream media describes Rodrigo Roa Duterte,the 16th President of the Republic of the Philippines,widespread generalizations emerged.He was the country's first Mindanaoan president and acquired popularity among Filipinos by working on platforms to reduce drug addiction,corruption,and criminality,and received 39 percent of the vote in the 2016 Presidential Election.Back on the year 2016,during the first Presidential Debate,Duterte had sworn that he will eliminate the extensive propagation of drugs in the country with his first six months of authority.With the advent of his presidential campaign,arises the issue on extra-judicial killings from his ruthless hunt for drug pushers and users which is highly criticized by the human rights devotees.This was the cornerstone of Duterte's presidential campaign and the crime solution hallmark of his 22-year period as mayor of Davao City.While the president's critics state that this is unjust and immoral,this paper argues that Duterte's radical politics is necessary in the lessening if not total eradication of criminality and corruption that the country had been experiencing.Using the lens of Deontological Ethics and Utilitarian Ethics,this paper tries to explain Duterte's radical politics and why it is needed in the contemporary Philippine society.

The Relationship Between the Good and the Right in the Context of Chinese Philosophy

Ancient Chinese philosophy has explored the relationship between the good and the right in a quite distinct way from modern Western philosophy.According to its insights rooted in real life,the fundamental function of the right is neither to have little to do with the good as deontology claims,nor merely to produce more good in quantitative terms as consequentialism claims,but is to ensure the primary good and prevent the primary evil,both of which are of top importance to human life first and foremost in qualitative terms.

On Measuring the Moral Value of Action

Deontology and consequentialism are two prominent, disparate tenets of normative ethics concerned with prescribing norms for ethical action in order to advance human flourishing. While consequentialism in its purest form is practical and realistic, its precepts do not intrinsically consider justice and human rights, which are salient canons of deontology. Contrariwise, though plenary deontology categorically focuses on duty or rule-based ethics, its prescripts overlook the consequences of moral action, which results in indeterminate and conceivably dramatic implications for societal eudemonia and human flourishing Traditionally, consequentialists have sought to quantify the moral value of action by formulating creative expressions. Attempts have also been made to combine ideologies in order to resolve moral conflicts that arise in both normative ethical positions. This article fuses these approaches, creating a single formulation to measure the moral value of action. Used as a guideline in the moral decision-making process, this formulation enjoins individuals to consider the consequences of action beyond the self, to ruminate beyond the immediacy of an act under consideration, and to regard unqualified societal and global norms for justice and human rights as a baseline for all moral action.

The Semantic Equivalence Between the Good and the Right:Its Support for and Challenge to Consequentialism

Viewed from the perspective of meta-ethics,there is some semantic equivalence between the good as desirability and the right as acceptability,so that we can claim that whatever is desirable for a person is also acceptable to and thus right for her or him in terms of its very goodness.In the debate with deontology,then,this equivalence gives consequentialism an advantage,because it could prove that the good on its own is always right,and the evil on its own is always wrong.Meanwhile,it also puts consequentialism at a disadvantage,because consequentialism could hardly answer a tough question:why do we seriously need another criterion of right and wrong besides the one of good and evil in evaluation?

Variable retention harvesting: conceptual analysis according to different environmental ethics and forest valuation

Background:Conceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions.Many concepts referring to forest management are widely used by decision-makers,regardless of their complexity.Although the scientific and methodological issues of forestry practices are frequently discussed in the literature,their normative dimensions are rarely treated.Thus,linguistic uncertainty increases when different environmentally ethical perspectives and ways of valuing forests are considered.The objective was to compare different conceptualizations on the silvicultural systems suggested for forest management and the implications they have for conservation.We have conceptually contrasted highintensity forestry practices with variable retention harvesting,considering different environmentally ethical perspectives and forest valuation alternatives.Results:Clear boundaries between clear-cutting,selective logging,and variable retention harvesting can be evidenced when different ethical points of view and alternatives in the human-nature relationships are considered.We have found a variety of definitions of variable retention harvesting that can be analyzed under different ethical positions.Sharply contrasting views on variable retention harvesting can be evidenced if nature is considered to be purely at human’s service or if it is conceptualized as humans co-inhabiting with nature.The latter position implies that the maintenance of ecological,evolutionary,and historical processes supported by unmanaged forest stands is a crucial step for forest management proposals based on variable retention harvesting.Conclusions:Forestry practices that are focused on forest yields and that misinterpret functional uncertainty of forest functioning would be risky.Moreover,forestry with variable retention harvesting could imply good yields with reasonable conservation management in some contexts,while it could be unacceptable in other socioecological contexts.The improvement of conceptual clarity on the different meanings of variable retention harvesting and the development of indicators for forest management based on the variations of this concept can reduce controversies.

On Toleration, Charity, and Epistemic Fallibilism

In this paper I examine some presuppositions of toleration and pluralism and explore two models, viz., a deontological and a consequentialist model, respectively, which could support the view that rational agents should act in a tolerant way. Against the background which is offered by the first model, I give two arguments in favor of the view that people are better off and more rational if they act in a tolerant way. The first argument draws upon aprinciple of charity which is usually applied in philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, but which could, equally well, work with regard to foundational issues in ethics and philosophy of action. The second argument is built upon the epistemic principle offallibilism and it is meant to show that acting in a tolerant way is the rational thing to do from this perspective.