Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ethics/archive1

Femke's review

I'm moving finished parts of the review here, as the nomination page is clogging up the main FAC page, and making it more intimidating for others to join in.

Lead/definition

• Normative ethics discovers and justifies universal principles that govern how people should act in any situation. --> I would simplify as "Normative ethics aims to find universal principles ... ". Is "in any situation" redundant with universal? And is it true of all normative ethics? In existentialism, aren't they arguing against the existence of these universal principles?

  I simplified the claim and weakened it to be as inclusive as possible. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Can we give less abstract examples of applied ethics in the lead? So that people who couldn't understand the normative ethics sentence can still follow?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• In some cases, they differ concerning which acts they see as right or wrong --> they differ in which (simpler)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• All but one of the photos are of white males. Is this field of study that bad?

  The article has images of Buddha and Laozi. I found a different image for the beginning of the section "Applied ethics". The image of Habermas is not essential so we could replace it with something else if you have an idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• One of the difficulties of applied ethics is to determine how to apply general ethical principles to concrete practical situations, like medical procedures. --> are concrete and practical doing the same in that sentence?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Different types of virtue ethics differ concerning how they understand virtues and their role in practical life --> differ on how (simpler).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• A key problem in bioethics concerns how features such as consciousness, being able to feel pleasure and pain, rationality, and personhood affect the moral status of entities. --> A key problem in bioethics is how (I feel the word concern is slightly overused).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

More to come. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Femke and thanks for reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• It asks whether moral facts have mind-independent existence --> can this be omitted or said more simply per WP:EXPLAINLEAD?

  I found a way to express this in simplier terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• The domain of morality is a normative field governing what people ought to do rather than what they actually do, what they want to do, or what social conventions require. ---> Can we make this sentence structure easier. Something like "morality deals with what people ought to do ... "

  I slightly reworded your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Can we simplify "According to one view, morality is restricted to the question of what moral obligations people have while ethics is a wider term that takes additional considerations into account, such as what is good or how to lead a meaningful life." Maybe something along the lines of "One view is that morality focuses on what people are required to do, while ethics is broader and includes ideas about what is good and how to live a meaningful life.". Or "According to one view, morality focuses on what moral obligations people have while ethics is broader and includes ideas about what is good and how to live a meaningful life".

  I implemented a slight variation of your second suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Metaethics

Here we get to the most difficult part of the article. The question is who the target audience is. I always imagine that the target audience for broad articles like this includes 16-year olds, but perhaps we can write for a slightly more educated audience here.

• underlying background assumptions --> either underlying assumptions or background assumptions

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Metaethical theories usually do not directly take substantive positions regarding normative ethical theories but they can influence them nonetheless by questioning the foundational principles on which they rest --> Metaethical theories typically do not directly adopt substantive positions on normative ethical theories. However, they can still influence these theories by examining their foundational principles. ("foundational" and "on which they rest" seem redundant").

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• On the level of ontology, it is concerned with the metaphysical status of moral values and principles --> Both ontology and metaphysical are jargon. I do not understand this sentence

  I found a way to not use the word "metaphysical" and I added a footnote to clarify the meaning of the word "ontology". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Metaethics further covers psychological and anthropological considerations regarding how moral judgments motivate people to act and how to explain cross-cultural differences in moral assessments --> Can we simplify to "Metaethics also explores how moral judgments drive actions and explains differences in moral views across cultures." or an intermediate version like "Metaethics also examines how moral judgments motivate actions from psychological perspectives and explains cross-cultural differences in moral assessments through anthropological studies."

  I tried a different formulation, please see if this works for you. The main point of this paragraph is to show how metaethics overlaps with other fields of inquiry. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Works well. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Do we need to describe supererogation twice? Both here and in the normative ethics section? It's a tough word.

  I moved the first mention to a footnote since the main point is something else there. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• People who are morally responsible deserve evaluative attitudes from others, such as praise or blame --> I can't quite put my finger on this, but this sentence feels odd for two reasons. It feels odd to say people "deserve" praise or blame in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, "evaluative attitudes" is a very abstract and, to me, odd phrase.

  I found a different way to express this idea without using the expression "evaluative attitudes". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• A key debate in metaethics concerns the ontological status of morality and encompasses the question of whether ethical values and principles form part of reality. --> Maybe simplify to something like "A major debate in metaethics is about the ontological status of morality, questioning whether ethical values and principles are real." or an intermediate "A major debate in metaethics is about the ontological status of morality, questioning whether ethical values and principles form part of reality".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• This observation is sometimes taken as an argument against moral realism since moral disagreement is widespread and concerns most fields --> I think you can omit "concerns most fields" or reword as "widespread in most fields".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• A different explanation states that morality arises from moral emotions, which people project onto the external world --> I don't understand this. You explain this better in the Cognitivism section, so you could avoid mentioning it here perhaps?

  I reformulated the sentence. The idea is not essential here so we could remove it if the new version is also not ideal. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Moral nihilism agrees with moral relativism that there are different standpoints according to which people judge actions to be right or wrong. However, it disagrees that this practice involves a form of morality and understands it instead as one among many types of human practices --> The initial sentence is a bit tough to digest. Maybe something like this flows better: Moral nihilism, like moral relativism, recognises that people judge actions as right or wrong from different perspectives. However, it disagrees that these judgments are moral and sees them as just one type of human behaviour. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I used your first sentence and adjusted the 2nd one. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• This view is usually motivated by the idea that moral properties are unique because they express normative features or what should be the case --> no need to explain the word normative again; they express what should be the case is more clear.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• The metaethical debate between cognitivism and non-cognitivism belongs to the field of semantics and concerns the meaning of moral statements. --> The metaethical debate between cognitivism and non-cognitivism is about the meaning of moral statements and is a part of the study of semantics. (avoiding concern).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Ethical intuitionism is one foundationalist view that states that humans have a special cognitive faculty through which they can know right from wrong. --> one such view? Connecting it better to the previous sentence without repeting the difficult word.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thought experiments are a common methodological device in ethics to decide between competing theories. --> method rather than methodological device?

  I adjusted the formulation to use the term "method" instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• explore how moral intuitions about right behavior depend on particular factors in the imagined situation. --> explore how people's ideas of right and wrong change based on specific details in that situation. (simpler). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I used your suggestion but replaced the term "ideas" with "intuitions". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Related fields

• Is evolutionary ethics a subfield of moral psychology? Mesoudi describes them as related fields. The IEP doesn't mention the words moral psychology, but maps evolutionary ethics onto descriptive ethics, normative ethics and metaethics. I find the classification a bit odd myself.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• The article doesn't mention explicitly empirical findings on morality in animals. I know the article is already longer than ideal, but it may merit a sentence. Not sure if that fits under moral psychology rather than descriptive ethics. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good idea, I found a way to mention it in connection with evolutionary ethics. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have nothing to add about the history section. It's well-written and clear. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Normative ethics

• Many theories of normative ethics aim additionally to guide behavior by helping people make moral decisions --> also aim rather than aim additionally? Sounds too formal like this

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• A key aspect of consequentialist theories is that they provide a characterization of what is good and then define what is right in terms of what is good --> this could do with an example.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• shaped to result in --> shaped to achieve might flwo better?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Many consequentialists assess the value of consequences based on whether they promote happiness or suffering. --> Many types assess (to avoid having consequences twice)?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• There are various disagreements about what consequences should be assessed --> various is unnecessary here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rule consequentialism uses considerations of consequences to determine which rules should be followed: people should follow the rules that have the best consequences in a community that accepts them. --> That first bit of the sentence is confusing and complicated. Maybe something like this would be better: "Rule consequentialism determines the best rules by considering their outcomes at a community level. People should follow the rules that lead to the best consequences when everyone in the community follows them."

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• For example, if a prohibition to lie is part of the best rules then, according to rule consequentialism, a person should not lie even in a particular case where lying would result in the best possible consequences --> For example, if not lying is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should not lie, even if lying would lead to better consequences in a specific case. (seems simpler)

  I implemented a slight variation of your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Another disagreement on the level of consequences is between actual and expected consequentialism. --> I think you can remove "on the level of consequences".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine the moral value of this act --> According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine its moral value. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Another difference --> A further difference (avoids starting two paragraphs in the same vein).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• In this regard, deontologists often allow that there is a gap between what is right and what is good --> I don't know if following the rules is right or good after reading this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I clarified this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies for how long this review is getting. It may be more suitable for PR at this point. I plan to go over the text twice, first in detail, and then again in a quick read. My second read of the lead:

  I appreciate you taking the time for this detailed assessment. Given the scope of the topic, longer-than-average reviews are probably not entirely avoidable. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations belonging to a specific domain, such as abortion and treatment of animals. --> The word "applied" already implies "belonging to a specific domain", which can be omitted for simplicity. A third example may be useful instead.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would not introduce the word metatheory in the lead. It's difficult jargon and not necessary to understand the sentence.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would only give 3 examples of metaethics, as it's a difficult concept, and applied examples will be easier to understand.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Consequentialism -> Some theorists define teleological ethics as the wider term that also encompasses certain forms of virtue ethics --> "a wider term"?

  I clarified the explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Deontology - These norms describe the requirements or duties that all actions need to follow. --> Can we omit duties? Using metonymy makes the text more complex (that is, duties are typically something individual do). Or rewrite so it's clear the duties are for individuals?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Many tend to follow a negative approach by holding that certain acts are forbidden under any circumstances --> I suspect the word negative is jargon in this sentence, but I don't a 100% sure I'm understanding it.

  I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agent-centered theories are often interested in the motives and intentions for which people act and emphasize the importance of doing something for the right reasons. --> Agent-centred theories often focus on the motives and intentions behind people's actions, highlighting the importance of acting for the right reasons. (is "for which people act" correct English? Used further down too)

  I implemented your suggestion but I think either formulation works (for example, see [1]) Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affect by actions the rights they have. --> Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affected by actions and the rights they have

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• He insists that moral action should not be guided by situation-dependent means-end reasoning to achieve some kind of fixed good, such as happiness. --> Quite a difficult sentence. I associate the term "fixed good" with what economists mean with good (economics). Could specific goal work better? I've never seen means-end as an adjective, and find it difficult to parse the sentence with two compound adjectives behind each other. The paragraph that follows explains this concepts as well, with a lot more clarity.

  I reformulated the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's still quite tough to read. Can we make it more concrete? Mean-end relationship is very abstract. Britannica does a better job at explaining I think. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please see if the current version is better. It does not use the term "means-end". We could introduce the distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, like the Britannica article, but this might increase the length of the explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• This means that the person would want everyone else also to follow this maxim. --> Omit that? And change also to as well for flow?

  I moved it to a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was to omit the word "that" for flow. The sentence is full on one-syllable words which for me breaks the rythm of the text. Super minor point. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done, sorry for the misunderstanding. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• This discourse should follow certain requirements characteristic of an ideal speech situation to ensure fairness and inclusivity. --> Not sure if this is correct, but can we omit "certain requirements characteristic of"?

  I reformulated that part. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• An important factor in this regard is the practical wisdom, also referred to as phronesis, of knowing when, how, and which virtue to express. --> in this regard is unnecessary, right?

  It helps establish the connection with the point from the previous sentence but it's not essential so I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agent-based theories, by contrast, see happiness only as a side effect and focus instead on the motivational and dispositional characteristics that are expressed while acting. --> I don't quite know what disposition means. Can we reword "motivational and dispositional characteristics" as motivation and disposition.

  I found a way to express the idea without the word "dispositional". I kept the expression "motivational characteristics" to help distinguish virtue theory from deontology by talking about underlying tendencies. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  much clearer :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Postmodern ethics instead focuses on how moral demands arise when encountering others --> I don't understand.

  I tried to clarify it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not super clear still, but this may be becasue postmodern ethics is not that clear? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's probably one of the reasons. As I see it, our sentence is not particularly difficult to understand, but it's also not particularly useful in helping people decide how to act. The sentence was added in response to a PR request since the rest of the paragraph is more about postmodern criticism of other views than about their own views. I don't think the sentence is important but I also don't think that it does much damage. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That was normative ethics done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• One of its key aspects is --> In particular. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Applied ethics

• and whether other considerations are relevant - that's quite vague. Can we omit it?

  The first part of the sentence belongs to the top-down methodology. Without the second part, the reader may have the impression that this is the only approach, which would be curious given that we discuss the contrast in the next paragraph. I reformulated the sentence to make it a little more concrete. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see how the Kantian "respecting personhood " relates to the medical procedure. Is a more concrete example possible?

  I used the more concrete case of abortion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I find it difficult to understand the difference between casuistry and the top-down approach.

  I expanded the explanation of casuistry. I hope it's clearer now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• why single out the International in the duty towards future generations? A lot of environmental problems are at a national scale

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• A central topic in medical ethics concerns issues associated with the beginning and the end of life. -> Medical ethics often addresses issues related to the start and end of life. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• This implies that all other entities only have a derivative moral status to the extent that they affect human life. --> This suggests that all other entities possess moral status only insofar as they impact human life. (?)

  Done. I kept the "derivative moral status" to contrast with the "basic moral status" in the previous sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• In relation to the end of life, there are ethical dilemmas concerning a person's right to end their own life in cases of terminal illness and the assistance provided by medical practitioners in doing so. --> At the end of life, ethical issues arise about whether a person can choose to end their life in cases of terminal illness and if doctors should help them do so. (simpler)

  I made a minor adjustment to your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure how to rephrase, but "An influential consideration in this field emphasizes the importance of animal welfare while arguing that humans should avoid or minimize the harm done to animals." is a bit odd. I don't quite understand what this consideration is. Could we say something like "This field often emphasizes".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• In its widest sense, it covers the whole biosphere and the cosmos. --> Biosphere is odd here, as it's a stricter sense than the previous sentence (natural resources aren't part of the biosphere, and ecosysmtes arguably cover the entire biosphere). Can we omit it?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• We mention future generations above, but not in the section about environmental ethics. The two ethical questions I hear most about in environmental ethics are around climate justice (rich people polluting, poor people suffering), and duties towards future generations. But then, I have not read any actual philosophical texts on this, so not sure if it's due.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• A closely related topic concerns the --> A closely related topic is ..

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Business ethics further examines the role of truthfulness, honesty, and fairness in business practices --> Do we need both honesty and thuthfulness. Honesty captures thuthfulness already, right?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• The ethics of technology has implications for both communication ethics and information ethics regarding communication and information technologies. --> Is this important?

  The main purpose of this sentence is that communication ethics and information ethics are mentioned somewhere in the article. We could try another formulation or move them to the See-also section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  information ethics is mentioned previously. I don't think we need to mention communications ethics separately. The article is a mess, so a link isn't that useful at the moment either.

  I removed the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• such as prosthetic limbs, performance-enhancing drugs, and genetic enhancement. --> It's not clear how prosthetic limbs pose an ethical problem to me. Can we omit this example?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• They are commonly divided into --> It is commonly divided into?

  The "they" refers to the conditions mentioned in the previous sentence. I reformulated it to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Additional topics are recruitment, training, and discharge of military personnel as well as the procurement of military equipment. --> Again, not quite clear why this stands out. All institutions do procurement. Why single out the military? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I removed this example. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• In its widest sense, it examines the moral issues associated with any artifacts created and used for instrumental means, from simple artifacts like spears to high-tech computers and nanotechnology. --> I don't understand what "for instrumental means" means. Can it be omitted? The second artifact might need replacing items for avoid repetition.

  I found a way to avoid the expression "instrumental means" and remove the second use of the term "artifact". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• questions surrounding the issue of --> and questions about. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)