Seven Pillars Institute

A New Issue of Moral Cents is Out!

We are close to the five-year anniversary of the global financial crisis, if we take ...

Read More

Bank of America’s Takeover of Merrill Lynch

Bank of America agreed to pay $2.43 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit with investors who ...

Read More

Lockean Proviso

This proviso is an ‘enough and as good’ clause on original acquisition, stating that we can only appropriate unowned property if we leave enough and as good for others. Share and Enjoy

Veil of Ignorance

A hypothetical mental state, in John Rawls version of Social Contract Theory, in which we imagine ourselves as being situated behind a “veil of ignorance” in which we are ignorant of our particular characteristics such as sex, race, IQ, financial status, family background, religious ideology, personal philosophy, etc. The “veil of ignorance” forces us to imagine ourselves in a position, free of bias, and one in which we are unaware of any particular skills or abilities we may have. According to Rawls, valid principles of justice are those we would ...

Exploitation

Utilization of others with the motive of self-interest. One person taking an unfair advantage of another, for selfish reasons. Share and Enjoy

Caveat Emptor

Latin term meaning “Let the Buyer beware”. This term adheres to the basic premise that when it comes to a transaction, the buyer is the one held entirely responsible for the transaction, as well as the product(s) that come with it. In other words, it is the buyer’s responsibility to choose well when making a transaction, and this can be done in the form of testing a product, making sure that the product being purchased has no defects, etc. Currently, the United States rejects such a philosophy as ‘Caveat emptor’, ...

Double (Moral) Standard

An ethical or moral code which allows for greater freedom to one person or group than to another. In other words, a double standard is a set of principles which apply more strictly to one group than to another. Share and Enjoy

Moral Standard

A moral standard refers to the norms which we have about the types of actions which we believe to be morally acceptable and morally unacceptable. Specifically, moral standards deal with matters which can either seriously harm or seriously benefit human beings. The validity of moral standards comes from the line of reasoning that was taken to back or support them, and thus are not able to be formed or changed by particular bodies of authority. Share and Enjoy ...

Political Pluralism

Political pluralism begins with the basic claim that there exists a variety of differing value systems in the world today and thus a variety of positions regarding this claim. The overall concern of political pluralism is what sort of limits are governments able to put on people’s freedoms in order to act within their specific value system. Share and Enjoy

Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism is an ethical view claiming essentially that all forms of human conduct can be classified as either being right or wrong in any context. Regardless of intention or purpose, committing bad actions are always going to be bad, and they cannot be justified. In other words, certain actions are always right and certain actions are always wrong, no matter how one tries to rationalize it. Share and Enjoy ...

Supererogation

Moral actions were once thought to be of only three types: required, forbidden, or permissible (i.e., neither required nor forbidden). Required acts are good to do, forbidden acts are bad to do, and permissible acts are morally neutral. This trinity seemed well-established until J.O. Urmson challenged this classification system by arguing for the existence of a fourth category of acts.1 Urmson posited actions performed by saints and heroes as paradigm examples of supererogatory acts—those which are morally praiseworthy but not morally required. Gregory Mellema later posited a more specific definition: ...

Demandingness Objection

The demandingness objection refers to an argument against varieties of consequentialism. Tim Mulgan presents the argument in the following form: Consequentialism makes demand D. D is an unreasonable demand for a moral theory to make. Therefore, consequentialism makes unreasonable demands.1 The demandingness objection derives much of its strength from cases in which adherence to consequentialism appears to require extraordinary sacrifices of moral agents, sacrifices which plausibly appear supererogatory. When confronted with a form of the demandingness objection, consequentialists must either deny that consequentialism requires the specified demand or deny that the demand made ...