Ethics

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy,
it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior
is morally right. Its main branches include normative ethics, applied ethics, and
metaethics.

Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act.
Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as
abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics explores the
underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective
moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate
people. Influential normative theories are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue
ethics. According to consequentialists, an act is right if it leads to the best
consequences. Deontologists focus on acts themselves, saying that they must
adhere to duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the
manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle
of morality.

Ethics is closely connected to value theory, which studies the nature and types of
value, like the contrast between intrinsic and instrumental value. Moral psychology is
a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in
morality, such as reasoning and the formation of character. Descriptive ethics
describes the dominant moral codes and beliefs in different societies and considers
their historical dimension.

The history of ethics started in the ancient period with the development of ethical
principles and theories in ancient Egypt India China and Greece This period saw the
emergence of ethical teachings associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism,
Daoism, and contributions of philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle. During the
medieval period, ethical thought was strongly influenced by religious teachings. In the
modern period, this focus shifted to a more secular approach concerned with moral
experience, reasons for acting, and the consequences of actions. An influential
development in the 20th century was the emergence of metaethics.

Definition

According to Aristotle, how to

lead a good life is one of the
central questions of ethics.[1]

Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is the study of moral phenomena. It is one of the
main branches of philosophy and investigates the nature of morality and the
principles that govern the moral evaluation of conduct, character traits, and
institutions. It examines what obligations people have, what behavior is right and
wrong, and how to lead a good life. Some of its key questions are "How should one
live?" and "What gives meaning to life?".[2] In contemporary philosophy, ethics is
usually divided into normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.[3]

Morality is about what people ought to do rather than what they actually do, what they
want to do, or what social conventions require. As a rational and systematic field of
inquiry, ethics studies practical reasons why people should act one way rather than
another. Most ethical theories seek universal principles that express a general
standpoint of what is objectively right and wrong.[4] In a slightly different sense, the
term ethics can also refer to individual ethical theories in the form of a rational
system of moral principles, such as Aristotelian ethics, and to a moral code that
certain societies, social groups, or professions follow, as in Protestant work ethic and
medical ethics.[5]

The English word ethics has its roots in the Ancient Greek word êthos (ἦθος),
meaning 'character' and 'personal disposition'. This word gave rise to the Ancient
Greek word ēthikós (ἠθικός), which was translated into Latin as ethica and entered
the English language in the 15th century through the Old French term éthique.[6] The
term morality originates in the Latin word moralis, meaning 'manners' and 'character'.
It was introduced into the English language during the Middle English period through
the Old French term moralité.[7]

The terms ethics and morality are usually used interchangeably but some
philosophers distinguish between the two. 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 lead a meaningful life. Another difference is that codes of
conduct in specific areas, such as business and environment, are usually termed
ethics rather than morality, as in business ethics and environmental ethics.[8]

Normative ethics
Normative ethics is the philosophical study of ethical conduct and investigates the
fundamental principles of morality. It aims to discover and justify general answers to
questions like "How should one live?" and "How should people act?", usually in the
form of universal or domain-independent principles that determine whether an act is
right or wrong.[9] For example, given the particular impression that it is wrong to set a
child on fire for fun, normative ethics aims to find more general principles that explain
why this is the case, like the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to
the innocent, which may itself be explained in terms of a more general principle.[10]
Many theories of normative ethics also aim to guide behavior by helping people make
moral decisions.[11]

Theories in normative ethics state how people should act or what kind of behavior is
correct. They do not aim to describe how people normally act, what moral beliefs
di l h h h b li f h i h hi l d
upheld in certain social groups. These topics belong to descriptive ethics and are
studied in fields like anthropology, sociology, and history rather than normative
ethics.[12]

Some systems of normative ethics arrive at a single principle covering all possible
cases. Others encompass a small set of basic rules that address all or at least the
most important moral considerations.[13] One difficulty for systems with several basic
principles is that these principles may conflict with each other in some cases and
lead to ethical dilemmas.[14]

Distinct theories in normative ethics suggest different principles as the foundation of

morality. The three most influential schools of thought are consequentialism,
deontology, and virtue ethics.[15] These schools are usually presented as exclusive
alternatives, but depending on how they are defined, they can overlap and do not
necessarily exclude one another.[16] In some cases, they differ in which acts they see
as right or wrong. In other cases, they recommend the same course of action but
provide different justifications for why it is right.[17]

Consequentialism
Consequentialism, also called teleological ethics,[18][a] says that morality depends on
consequences. According to the most common view, an act is right if it brings the
best future. This means that there is no alternative course of action that has better
consequences.[20] 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.[21] For example, classical utilitarianism says that pleasure is good and that the
action leading to the most overall pleasure is right.[22] Consequentialism has been
discussed indirectly since the formulation of classical utilitarianism in the late 18th
century. A more explicit analysis of this view happened in the 20th century, when the
term was coined by G. E. M. Anscombe.[23]

Consequentialists usually understand the consequences of an action in a very wide

sense that includes the totality of its effects. This is based on the idea that actions
make a difference in the world by bringing about a causal chain of events that would
not have existed otherwise.[24] A core intuition behind consequentialism is that the
future should be shaped to achieve the best possible outcome.[25]

The act itself is usually not seen as part of the consequences. This means that if an
act has intrinsic value or disvalue, it is not included as a factor. Some
consequentialists see this as a flaw, saying that all value-relevant factors need to be
considered. They try to avoid this complication by including the act itself as part of
the consequences. A related approach is to characterize consequentialism not in
terms of consequences but in terms of outcome, with the outcome being defined as
the act together with its consequences.[26]

Most forms of consequentialism are agent-neutral. This means that the value of
consequences is assessed from a neutral perspective, that is, acts should have
consequences that are good in general and not just good for the agent. It is
controversial whether agent-relative moral theories, like ethical egoism, should be
considered as types of consequentialism.[27]

Types
There are many different types of consequentialism. They differ based on what type
of entity they evaluate, what consequences they take into consideration, and how they
determine the value of consequences.[28] Most theories assess the moral value of
acts. However, consequentialism can also be used to evaluate motives, character
traits, rules, and policies.[29]

Many types assess the value of consequences based on whether they promote
happiness or suffering. But there are also alternative evaluative principles, such as
desire satisfaction, autonomy, freedom, knowledge, friendship, beauty, and self-
perfection.[30] Some forms of consequentialism hold that there is only a single source
of value.[31] The most prominent among them is classical utilitarianism, which states
that the moral value of acts only depends on the pleasure and suffering they
cause.[32] An alternative approach says that there are many different sources of value,
which all contribute to one overall value.[31] Before the 20th century, consequentialists
were only concerned with the total of value or the aggregate good. In the 20th century,
alternative views were developed that additionally consider the distribution of value.
One of them states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal
distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.[33]
There are disagreements about which consequences should be assessed. An
important distinction is between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism.
According to act consequentialism, the consequences of an act determine its moral
value. This means that there is a direct relation between the consequences of an act
and its moral value. Rule consequentialism, by contrast, holds that an act is right if it
follows a certain set of rules. 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. This
implies that the relation between an act and its consequences is indirect. For
example, if telling the truth is one of the best rules, then according to rule
consequentialism, a person should tell the truth even in specific cases where lying
would lead to better consequences.[34]

Another disagreement is between actual and expected consequentialism. According

to the traditional view, only the actual consequences of an act affect its moral value.
One difficulty of this view is that many consequences cannot be known in advance.
This means that in some cases, even well-planned and intentioned acts are morally
wrong if they inadvertently lead to negative outcomes. An alternative perspective
states that what matters are not the actual consequences but the expected
consequences. This view takes into account that when deciding what to do, people
have to rely on their limited knowledge of the total consequences of their actions.
According to this view, a course of action has positive moral value despite leading to
an overall negative outcome if it had the highest expected value, for example,
because the negative outcome could not be anticipated or was unlikely.[35]

A further difference is between maximizing and satisficing consequentialism.

According to maximizing consequentialism, only the best possible act is morally
permitted. This means that acts with positive consequences are wrong if there are
alternatives with even better consequences. One criticism of maximizing
consequentialism is that it demands too much by requiring that people do
significantly more than they are socially expected to. For example, if the best action
for someone with a good salary would be to donate 70% of their income to charity, it
would be morally wrong for them to only donate 65%. Satisficing consequentialism,
by contrast, only requires that an act is "good enough" even if it is not the best
possible alternative. According to this view, it is possible to do more than one is
morally required to do.[36][b]
Mohism in ancient Chinese philosophy is one of the earliest forms of
consequentialism. It arose in the 5th century BCE and argued that political action
should promote justice as a means to increase the welfare of the people.[38]

Utilitarianism
The most well-known form of consequentialism is utilitarianism. In its classical form,
it is an act consequentialism that sees happiness as the only source of intrinsic value.
This means that an act is morally right if it produces "the greatest good for the
greatest number" by increasing happiness and reducing suffering. Utilitarians do not
deny that other things also have value, like health, friendship, and knowledge.
However, they deny that these things have intrinsic value. Instead, they say that they
have extrinsic value because they affect happiness and suffering. In this regard, they
are desirable as a means but, unlike happiness, not as an end.[39] The view that
pleasure is the only thing with intrinsic value is called ethical or evaluative
hedonism.[40]

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the founding fathers of classical utilitarianism.[41]

Classical utilitarianism was initially formulated by Jeremy Bentham at the end of the
18th century and further developed by John Stuart Mill. Bentham introduced the
hedonic calculus to assess the value of consequences. Two key aspects of the
h d i l l th i t it d th d ti f l A di t thi i
a pleasurable experience has a high value if it has a high intensity and lasts for a long
time. A common criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that its focus on the
intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in
sensory gratification. Mill responded to this criticism by distinguishing between
higher and lower pleasures. He stated that higher pleasures, like the intellectual
satisfaction of reading a book, are more valuable than lower pleasures, like the
sensory enjoyment of food and drink, even if their intensity and duration are the
same.[42] Since its original formulation, many variations of utilitarianism have
developed, including the difference between act and rule utilitarianism and between
maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.[43]

Deontology
Deontology assesses the moral rightness of actions based on a set of norms or
principles. These norms describe the requirements that all actions need to follow.[44]
They may include principles like telling the truth, keeping promises, and not
intentionally harming others.[45] Unlike consequentialists, deontologists hold that the
validity of general moral principles does not directly depend on their consequences.
They state that these principles should be followed in every case since they express
how actions are inherently right or wrong. According to moral philosopher David Ross,
it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.[46] Deontologists are
interested in which actions are right and often allow that there is a gap between what
is right and what is good.[47] Many focus on prohibitions and describe which acts are
forbidden under any circumstances.[48]

Agent-centered and patient-centered

Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the person who acts and the duties
they have. Agent-centered theories often focus on the motives and intentions behind
people's actions, highlighting the importance of acting for the right reasons. They
tend to be agent-relative, meaning that the reasons for which people should act
depend on personal circumstances. For example, a parent has a special obligation to
their child, while a stranger does not have this kind of obligation toward a child they
do not know. Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affected by
actions and the rights they have. An example is the requirement to treat other people
as ends and not merely as a means to an end.[49] This requirement can be used to
argue, for example, that it is wrong to kill a person against their will even if this act
would save the lives of several others. Patient-centered deontological theories are
usually agent-neutral, meaning that they apply equally to everyone in a situation,
regardless of their specific role or position.[50]

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant formulated a

deontological system based
on universal laws that apply to
all rational creatures.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is one of the most well-known deontologists.[51] He

states that reaching outcomes that people desire, such as being happy, is not the
main purpose of moral actions. Instead, he argues that there are universal principles
that apply to everyone independent of their desires. He uses the term categorical
imperative for these principles, saying that they have their source in the structure of
practical reason and are true for all rational agents. According to Kant, to act morally
is to act in agreement with reason as expressed by these principles[52] while violating
them is both immoral and irrational.[53]

Kant provided several formulations of the categorical imperative. One formulation

says that a person should only follow maxims[c] that can be universalized. This
means that the person would want everyone to follow the same maxim as a universal
law applicable to everyone. Another formulation states that one should treat other
people always as ends in themselves and never as mere means to an end. This
formulation focuses on respecting and valuing other people for their own sake rather
than using them in the pursuit of personal goals.[55]

In either case, Kant says that what matters is to have a good will. A person has a
good will if they respect the moral law and form their intentions and motives in
agreement with it. Kant states that actions motivated in such a way are
unconditionally good, meaning that they are good even in cases where they result in
undesirable consequences.[56]

Others
Divine command theory says that God is the source of morality. It states that moral
laws are divine commands and that to act morally is to obey and follow God's will.
While all divine command theorists agree that morality depends on God, there are
disagreements about the precise content of the divine commands, and theorists
belonging to different religions tend to propose different moral laws.[57] For example,
Christian and Jewish divine command theorists may argue that the Ten
Commandments express God's will[58] while Muslims may reserve this role for the
teachings of the Quran.[59]

Contractualists reject the reference to God as the source of morality and argue
instead that morality is based on an explicit or implicit social contract between
humans. They state that actual or hypothetical consent to this contract is the source
of moral norms and duties. To determine which duties people have, contractualists
often rely on a thought experiment about what rational people under ideal
circumstances would agree on. For example, if they would agree that people should
not lie then there is a moral obligation to refrain from lying. Because it relies on
consent, contractualism is often understood as a patient-centered form of
deontology.[60][d] Famous social contract theorists include Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Rawls.[62]
 According to discourse ethics, as
formulated by Jürgen Habermas,
moral norms are justified by rational
discourse within society.

Discourse ethics also focuses on social agreement on moral norms but says that this
agreement is based on communicative rationality. It aims to arrive at moral norms for
pluralistic modern societies that encompass a diversity of viewpoints. A universal
moral norm is seen as valid if all rational discourse participants do or would approve.
This way, morality is not imposed by a single moral authority but arises from the
moral discourse within society. This discourse should aim to establish an ideal
speech situation to ensure fairness and inclusivity. In particular, this means that
discourse participants are free to voice their different opinions without coercion but
are at the same time required to justify them using rational argumentation.[63]

Virtue ethics
The main concern of virtue ethics is how virtues are expressed in actions. As such, it
is neither directly interested in the consequences of actions nor in universal moral
duties.[64] Virtues are positive character traits like honesty, courage, kindness, and
compassion. They are usually understood as dispositions to feel, decide, and act in a
certain manner by being wholeheartedly committed to this manner. Virtues contrast
with vices, which are their harmful counterparts.[65]

Virtue theorists usually say that the mere possession of virtues by itself is not
sufficient. Instead, people should manifest virtues in their actions. An important
factor is the practical wisdom, also called phronesis, of knowing when, how, and
which virtue to express. For example, a lack of practical wisdom may lead
courageous people to perform morally wrong actions by taking unnecessary risks
that should better be avoided.[66]

Different types of virtue ethics differ on how they understand virtues and their role in
practical life. Eudaimonism is the original form of virtue theory developed in Ancient
Greek philosophy and draws a close relation between virtuous behavior and
happiness. It states that people flourish by living a virtuous life. Eudaimonist theories
often hold that virtues are positive potentials residing in human nature and that
actualizing these potentials results in leading a good and happy life.[67] Agent-based
theories, by contrast, see happiness only as a side effect and focus instead on the
admirable traits and motivational characteristics expressed while acting. This is often
combined with the idea that one can learn from exceptional individuals what those
characteristics are.[67] Feminist ethics of care are another form of virtue ethics. They
emphasize the importance of interpersonal relationships and say that benevolence by
caring for the well-being of others is one of the key virtues.[68]

Influential schools of virtue ethics in ancient philosophy were Aristotelianism and

Stoicism. According to Aristotle (384–322 BCE), each virtue[e] is a golden mean
between two types of vices: excess and deficiency. For example, courage is a virtue
that lies between the deficient state of cowardice and the excessive state of
recklessness. Aristotle held that virtuous action leads to happiness and makes
people flourish in life.[70] Stoicism emerged about 300 BCE[71] and taught that,
through virtue alone, people can achieve happiness characterized by a peaceful state
of mind free from emotional disturbances. The Stoics advocated rationality and self-
mastery to achieve this state.[72] In the 20th century, virtue ethics experienced a
resurgence thanks to philosophers such as Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot,
Alasdair MacIntyre, and Martha Nussbaum.[73]

Other traditions
There are many other schools of normative ethics in addition to the three main
traditions. Pragmatist ethics focuses on the role of practice and holds that one of the
key tasks of ethics is to solve practical problems in concrete situations. It has certain
similarities to utilitarianism and its focus on consequences but concentrates more on
how morality is embedded in and relative to social and cultural contexts. Pragmatists
tend to give more importance to habits than to conscious deliberation and
understand morality as a habit that should be shaped in the right way.[74]

Postmodern ethics agrees with pragmatist ethics about the cultural relativity of
morality. It rejects the idea that there are objective moral principles that apply
universally to all cultures and traditions. It asserts that there is no one coherent
ethical code since morality itself is irrational and humans are morally ambivalent
beings.[75] Postmodern ethics instead focuses on how moral demands arise in
specific situations as one encounters other people.[76]

The practices of compassion

and loving-kindness are key
elements of Buddhist ethics.

Ethical egoism is the view that people should act in their self-interest or that an action
is morally right if the person acts for their own benefit. It differs from psychological
egoism, which states that people actually follow their self-interest without claiming
that they should do so. Ethical egoists may act in agreement with commonly
accepted moral expectations and benefit other people, for example, by keeping
promises, helping friends, and cooperating with others. However, they do so only as a
means to promote their self-interest. Ethical egoism is often criticized as an immoral
and contradictory position.[77]

Normative ethics has a central place in most religions. Key aspects of Jewish ethics
f ll h 613 d fG d di h Mi hd f di
the Torah and to take responsibility for societal welfare.[78] Christian ethics puts less
emphasis on following precise laws and teaches instead the practice of selfless love,
such as the Great Commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself".[79] The Five
Pillars of Islam constitute a basic framework of Muslim ethics and focus on the
practice of faith, prayer, charity, fasting during Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca.[80]

Buddhists emphasize the importance of compassion and loving-kindness towards all

sentient entities.[81] A similar outlook is found in Jainism, which has non-violence as
its principal virtue.[82] Duty is a central aspect of Hindu ethics and is about fulfilling
social obligations, which may vary depending on a person's social class and stage of
life.[83] Confucianism places great emphasis on harmony in society and sees
benevolence as a key virtue.[84] Taoism extends the importance of living in harmony
to the whole world and teaches that people should practice effortless action by
following the natural flow of the universe.[85] Indigenous belief systems, like Native
American philosophy and the African Ubuntu philosophy, often emphasize the
interconnectedness of all living beings and the environment while stressing the
importance of living in harmony with nature.[86]

Metaethics
Metaethics is the branch of ethics that examines the nature, foundations, and scope
of moral judgments, concepts, and values. It is not interested in which actions are
right but in what it means for an action to be right and whether moral judgments are
objective and can be true at all. It further examines the meaning of morality and other
moral terms.[87] Metaethics is a metatheory that operates on a higher level of
abstraction than normative ethics by investigating its underlying assumptions.
Metaethical theories typically do not directly judge which normative ethical theories
are correct. However, metaethical theories can still influence normative theories by
examining their foundational principles.[88]

Metaethics overlaps with various branches of philosophy. On the level of ontology,[f] it

examines whether there are objective moral facts.[90] Concerning semantics, it asks
what the meaning of moral terms are and whether moral statements have a truth
value.[91] The epistemological side of metaethics discusses whether and how people
can acquire moral knowledge.[92] Metaethics overlaps with psychology because of its
interest in how moral judgments motivate people to act. It also overlaps with
anthropology since it aims to explain how cross-cultural differences affect moral
assessments.[93]

Basic concepts

The deontic square visualizes the relations

between possible moral statuses of an
act.[94]

Metaethics examines basic ethical concepts and their relations. Ethics is primarily
concerned with normative statements about what ought to be the case, in contrast to
descriptive statements, which are about what is the case.[95][g] Duties and obligations
express requirements of what people ought to do.[98] Duties are sometimes defined
as counterparts of the rights that always accompany them. According to this view,
someone has a duty to benefit another person if this other person has the right to
receive that benefit.[99]

Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each
other: to be obligated to do something means that one is not permitted not to do it
and to be permitted to do something means that one is not obligated not to do
it.[100][h] Some theorists define obligations in terms of values or what is good. When
used in a general sense, good contrasts with bad. When describing people and their
intentions, the term evil rather than bad is often employed.[101]
Obligations are used to assess the moral status of actions, motives, and character
traits.[102] An action is morally right if it is in tune with a person's obligations and
morally wrong if it violates them.[103] Supererogation is a special moral status that
applies to cases in which the agent does more than is morally required of them.[104]
To be morally responsible for an action usually means that the person possesses and
exercises certain capacities or some form of control.[i] If a person is morally
responsible then it is appropriate to respond to them in certain ways, for example, by
praising or blaming them.[106]

Realism, relativism, and nihilism

A major debate in metaethics is about the ontological status of morality, questioning
whether ethical values and principles are real. It examines whether moral properties
exist as objective features independent of the human mind and culture rather than as
subjective constructs or expressions of personal preferences and cultural norms.[107]

Moral realists accept the claim that there are objective moral facts. This view implies
that moral values are mind-independent aspects of reality and that there is an
absolute fact about whether a given action is right or wrong. A consequence of this
view is that moral requirements have the same ontological status as non-moral facts:
it is an objective fact whether there is an obligation to keep a promise just as it is an
objective fact whether a thing is rectangular.[107] Moral realism is often associated
with the claim that there are universal ethical principles that apply equally to
everyone.[108] It implies that if two people disagree about a moral evaluation then at
least one of them is wrong. This observation is sometimes taken as an argument
against moral realism since moral disagreement is widespread in most fields.[109]

Moral relativists reject the idea that morality is an objective feature of reality. They
argue instead that moral principles are human inventions. This means that a behavior
is not objectively right or wrong but only subjectively right or wrong relative to a
certain standpoint. Moral standpoints may differ between persons, cultures, and
historical periods.[110] For example, moral statements like "Slavery is wrong" or
"Suicide is permissible" may be true in one culture and false in another.[111][j] Some
moral relativists say that moral systems are constructed to serve certain goals such
as social coordination. According to this view, different societies and different social
groups within a society construct different moral systems based on their diverging
purposes.[113] Emotivism provides a different explanation, stating that morality arises
from moral emotions, which are not the same for everyone.[114]

Moral nihilists deny the existence of moral facts. They reject the existence of both
objective moral facts defended by moral realism and subjective moral facts defended
by moral relativism. They believe that the basic assumptions underlying moral claims
are misguided. Some moral nihilists conclude from this that anything is allowed. A
slightly different view emphasizes that moral nihilism is not itself a moral position
about what is allowed and prohibited but the rejection of any moral position.[115]
Moral nihilism, like moral relativism, recognizes that people judge actions as right or
wrong from different perspectives. However, it disagrees that this practice involves
morality and sees it as just one type of human behavior.[116]

Naturalism and non-naturalism

A central disagreement among moral realists is between naturalism and non-
naturalism. Naturalism states that moral properties are natural properties accessible
to empirical observation. They are similar to the natural properties investigated by the
natural sciences, like color and shape.[117] Some moral naturalists hold that moral
properties are a unique and basic type of natural property.[k] Another view states that
moral properties are real but not a fundamental part of reality and can be reduced to
other natural properties, such as properties describing the causes of pleasure and
pain.[119]

Non-naturalism argues that moral properties form part of reality and that moral
features are not identical or reducible to natural properties. This view is usually
motivated by the idea that moral properties are unique because they express what
should be the case.[120] Proponents of this position often emphasize this uniqueness
by claiming that it is a fallacy to define ethics in terms of natural entities or to infer
prescriptive from descriptive statements.[121]
Cognitivism and non-cognitivism
The metaethical debate between cognitivism and non-cognitivism is about the
meaning of moral statements and is a part of the study of semantics. According to
cognitivism, moral statements like "Abortion is morally wrong" and "Going to war is
never morally justified" are truth-apt, meaning that they all have a truth value: they are
either true or false. Cognitivism claims that moral statements have a truth value but is
not interested in which truth value they have. It is often seen as the default position
since moral statements resemble other statements, like "Abortion is a medical
procedure" or "Going to war is a political decision", which have a truth value.[122]

There is a close relation between the semantic theory of cognitivism and the
ontological theory of moral realism. Moral realists assert that moral facts exist. This
can be used to explain why moral statements are true or false: a statement is true if it
is consistent with the facts and false otherwise. As a result, philosophers who accept
one theory often accept the other as well. An exception is error theory, which
combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming that all moral statements are
false because there are no moral facts.[123]

Non-cognitivism is the view that moral statements lack a truth value. According to
this view, the statement "Murder is wrong" is neither true nor false. Some non-
cognitivists claim that moral statements have no meaning at all. A different
interpretation is that they have another type of meaning. Emotivism says that they
articulate emotional attitudes. According to this view, the statement "Murder is
wrong" expresses that the speaker has a negative moral attitude towards murder or
disapproves of it. Prescriptivism, by contrast, understands moral statements as
commands. According to this view, stating that "Murder is wrong" expresses a
command like "Do not commit murder".[124]

Moral knowledge
The epistemology of ethics studies whether or how one can know moral truths.
Foundationalist views state that some moral beliefs are basic and do not require
further justification. Ethical intuitionism is one such view that says that humans have
a special cognitive faculty through which they can know right from wrong.
Intuitionists often argue that general moral truths, like "Lying is wrong", are self-
evident and that it is possible to know them without relying on empirical experience. A
different foundationalist position focuses on particular observations rather than
general intuitions. It says that if people are confronted with a concrete moral
situation, they can perceive whether right or wrong conduct was involved.[125]

In contrast to foundationalists, coherentists say that there are no basic moral beliefs.
They argue that beliefs form a complex network and mutually support and justify one
another. According to this view, a moral belief can only amount to knowledge if it
coheres with the rest of the beliefs in the network.[125] Moral skeptics say that people
are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior, thereby rejecting the idea
that moral knowledge is possible. A common objection by critics of moral skepticism
asserts that it leads to immoral behavior.[126]

The trolley problem is a thought experiment

about the moral difference between doing and
allowing harm.

Thought experiments are used as a method in ethics to decide between competing

theories. They usually present an imagined situation involving an ethical dilemma and
explore how people's intuitions of right and wrong change based on specific details in
that situation.[127] For example, in Philippa Foot's trolley problem, a person can flip a
switch to redirect a trolley from one track to another, thereby sacrificing the life of one
person to save five. This scenario explores how the difference between doing and
allowing harm affects moral obligations.[128] Another thought experiment, proposed
by Judith Jarvis Thomson, examines the moral implications of abortion by imagining
a situation in which a person gets connected without their consent to an ill violinist. In
this scenario, the violinist dies if the connection is severed, similar to how a fetus dies
in the case of abortion. The thought experiment explores whether it would be morally
permissible to sever the connection within the next nine months.[129]
Moral motivation
On the level of psychology, metaethics is interested in how moral beliefs and
experiences affect behavior. According to motivational internalists, there is a direct
link between moral judgments and action. This means that every judgment about
what is right motivates the person to act accordingly. For example, Socrates defends
a strong form of motivational internalism by holding that a person can only perform
an evil deed if they are unaware that it is evil. Weaker forms of motivational
internalism say that people can act against their own moral judgments, for example,
because of the weakness of the will. Motivational externalists accept that people can
judge an act to be morally required without feeling a reason to engage in it. This
means that moral judgments do not always provide motivational force.[130] A closely
related question is whether moral judgments can provide motivation on their own or
need to be accompanied by other mental states, such as a desire to act morally.[131]

Applied ethics
Applied ethics, also known as practical ethics,[132] is the branch of ethics and applied
philosophy that examines concrete moral problems encountered in real-life
situations. Unlike normative ethics, it is not concerned with discovering or justifying
universal ethical principles. Instead, it studies how those principles can be applied to
specific domains of practical life, what consequences they have in these fields, and
whether additional domain-specific factors need to be considered.[133]

One of the difficulties of applied

ethics is to determine how to apply
general ethical principles to concrete
situations, like medical procedures.
One of the main challenges of applied ethics is to breach the gap between abstract
universal theories and their application to concrete situations.[134] For example, an in-
depth understanding of Kantianism or utilitarianism is usually not sufficient to decide
how to analyze the moral implications of a medical procedure like abortion. One
reason is that it may not be clear how the Kantian requirement of respecting
everyone's personhood applies to a fetus or, from a utilitarian perspective, what the
long-term consequences are in terms of the greatest good for the greatest
number.[135] This difficulty is particularly relevant to applied ethicists who employ a
top-down methodology by starting from universal ethical principles and applying
them to particular cases within a specific domain.[136] A different approach is to use a
bottom-up methodology, known as casuistry. This method does not start from
universal principles but from moral intuitions about particular cases. It seeks to arrive
at moral principles relevant to a specific domain, which may not be applicable to other
domains.[137] In either case, inquiry into applied ethics is often triggered by ethical
dilemmas in which a person is subject to conflicting moral requirements.[138]

Applied ethics covers issues belonging to both the private sphere, like right conduct in
the family and close relationships, and the public sphere, like moral problems posed
by new technologies and duties toward future generations.[139] Major branches
include bioethics, business ethics, and professional ethics. There are many other
branches, and their domains of inquiry often overlap.[140]

Bioethics
Bioethics covers moral problems associated with living organisms and biological
disciplines.[141] A key problem in bioethics is how features such as consciousness,
being able to feel pleasure and pain, rationality, and personhood affect the moral
status of entities. These differences concern, for example, how to treat non-living
entities like rocks and non-sentient entities like plants in contrast to animals, and
whether humans have a different moral status than other animals.[142] According to
anthropocentrism, only humans have a basic moral status. This suggests that all
other entities possess a derivative moral status only insofar as they impact human
life. Sentientism, by contrast, extends an inherent moral status to all sentient beings.
Further positions include biocentrism, which also covers non-sentient lifeforms, and
ecocentrism, which states that all of nature has a basic moral status.[143]

Bioethics is relevant to various aspects of life and many professions. It covers a wide
range of moral problems associated with topics like abortion, cloning, stem cell
research, euthanasia, suicide, animal testing, intensive animal farming, nuclear waste,
and air pollution.[144]

Bioethics can be divided into medical ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics
based on whether the ethical problems relate to humans, other animals, or nature in
general.[145] Medical ethics is the oldest branch of bioethics. The Hippocratic Oath is
one of the earliest texts to engage in medical ethics by establishing ethical guidelines
for medical practitioners like a prohibition to harm the patient.[146] Medical ethics
often addresses issues related to the start and end of life. It examines the moral
status of fetuses, for example, whether they are full-fledged persons and whether
abortion is a form of murder.[147] Ethical issues also arise about whether a person has
the right to end their life in cases of terminal illness or chronic suffering and if doctors
may help them do so.[148] Other topics in medical ethics include medical
confidentiality, informed consent, research on human beings, organ transplantation,
and access to healthcare.[146]

Harm done to animals is a

particular concern in animal
ethics, for example, as a result
of intensive animal farming.

Animal ethics examines how humans should treat other animals. This field often
emphasizes the importance of animal welfare while arguing that humans should
avoid or minimize the harm done to animals. There is wide agreement that it is wrong
to torture animals for fun. The situation is more complicated in cases where harm is
inflicted on animals as a side effect of the pursuit of human interests. This happens,
for example, during factory farming, when using animals as food, and for research
experiments on animals.[149] A key topic in animal ethics is the formulation of animal
rights. Animal rights theorists assert that animals have a certain moral status and
that humans should respect this status when interacting with them.[150] Examples of
suggested animal rights include the right to life, the right to be free from unnecessary
suffering, and the right to natural behavior in a suitable environment.[151]

Environmental ethics deals with moral problems relating to the natural environment
including animals, plants, natural resources, and ecosystems. In its widest sense, it
covers the whole cosmos.[152] In the domain of agriculture, this concerns the
circumstances under which the vegetation of an area may be cleared to use it for
farming and the implications of planting genetically modified crops.[153] On a wider
scale, environmental ethics addresses the problem of global warming and people's
responsibility on the individual and collective levels, including topics like climate
justice and duties towards future generations. Environmental ethicists often promote
sustainable practices and policies directed at protecting and conserving ecosystems
and biodiversity.[154]

Business and professional ethics

Business ethics examines the moral implications of business conduct and how
ethical principles apply to corporations and organizations.[155] A key topic is corporate
social responsibility, which is the responsibility of corporations to act in a manner that
benefits society at large. Corporate social responsibility is a complex issue since
many stakeholders are directly and indirectly involved in corporate decisions, such as
the CEO, the board of directors, and the shareholders. A closely related topic is the
question of whether corporations themselves, and not just their stakeholders, have
moral agency.[156] Business ethics further examines the role of honesty and fairness
in business practices as well as the moral implications of bribery, conflict of interest,
protection of investors and consumers, worker's rights, ethical leadership, and
corporate philanthropy [155]
Professional ethics is a closely related field that studies ethical principles applying to
members of a specific profession, like engineers, medical doctors, lawyers, and
teachers. It is a diverse field since different professions often have different
responsibilities.[157] Principles applying to many professions include that the
professional has the required expertise for the intended work and that they have
personal integrity and are trustworthy. Further principles are to serve the interest of
their target group, follow client confidentiality, and respect and uphold the client's
rights, such as informed consent.[158] More precise requirements often vary between
professions. A cornerstone of engineering ethics is to protect public safety, health,
and well-being.[159] Legal ethics emphasizes the importance of respect for justice,
personal integrity, and confidentiality.[160] Key factors in journalism ethics include
accuracy, truthfulness, independence, and impartiality as well as proper attribution to
avoid plagiarism.[161]

Other subfields
Many other fields of applied ethics are discussed in the academic literature.
Communication ethics covers moral principles of communicative conduct. Two key
issues in it are freedom of speech and speech responsibility. Freedom of speech
concerns the ability to articulate one's opinions and ideas without the threats of
punishment and censorship. Speech responsibility is about being accountable for the
consequences of communicative action and inaction.[162] A closely related field is
information ethics, which focuses on the moral implications of creating, controlling,
disseminating, and using information.[163]

Nuclear ethics addresses the moral

implications of nuclear technology,
such as atom bombs.
The ethics of technology examines the moral issues associated with the creation and
use of any artifact, from simple spears to high-tech computers and
nanotechnology.[164] Central topics in the ethics of technology include the risks
associated with creating new technologies, their responsible use, and questions
about human enhancement through technological means, such as performance-
enhancing drugs and genetic enhancement.[165] Important subfields include computer
ethics, ethics of artificial intelligence, machine ethics, ethics of nanotechnology, and
nuclear ethics.[166]

The ethics of war investigates moral problems of war and violent conflicts. According
to just war theory, waging war is morally justified if it fulfills certain conditions. These
conditions are commonly divided into requirements concerning the cause to initiate
violent activities, such as self-defense, and the way those violent activities are
conducted, such as avoiding excessive harm to civilians in the pursuit of legitimate
military targets.[167] Military ethics is a closely related field that is interested in the
conduct of military personnel. It governs questions of the circumstances under which
they are permitted to kill enemies, destroy infrastructure, and put the lives of their own
troops at risk.[168] Additional topics are the recruitment, training, and discharge of
military personnel.[169]

Other fields of applied ethics include political ethics, which examines the moral
dimensions of political decisions,[170] educational ethics, which covers ethical issues
related to proper teaching practices,[171] and sexual ethics, which addresses the moral
implications of sexual behavior.[172]

Related fields

Value theory
Value theory, also called axiology,[l] is the philosophical study of value. It examines the
nature and types of value.[174] A central distinction is between intrinsic and
instrumental value. An entity has intrinsic value if it is good in itself or good for its
own sake. An entity has instrumental value if it is valuable as a means to something
else, for example, by causing something that has intrinsic value.[175] Other topics
include what kinds of things have value and how valuable they are. For instance,
axiological hedonists say that pleasure is the only source of intrinsic value and that
the magnitude of value corresponds to the degree of pleasure. Axiological pluralists,
by contrast, hold that there are different sources of intrinsic value, such as happiness,
knowledge, and beauty.[176]

There are disagreements about the exact relation between value theory and ethics.
Some philosophers characterize value theory as a subdiscipline of ethics while others
see value theory as the broader term that encompasses other fields besides ethics,
such as aesthetics and political philosophy.[177] A different characterization sees the
two disciplines as overlapping but distinct fields.[178] The term axiological ethics is
sometimes used for the discipline studying this overlap, that is, the part of ethics that
studies values.[179] The two disciplines are sometimes distinguished based on their
focus: ethics is about moral behavior or what is right while value theory is about value
or what is good.[180] Some ethical theories, like consequentialism, stand very close to
value theory by defining what is right in terms of what is good. But this is not true for
ethics in general and deontological theories tend to reject the idea that what is good
can be used to define what is right.[181][m]

Moral psychology
Moral psychology explores the psychological foundations and processes involved in
moral behavior. It is an empirical science that studies how humans think and act in
moral contexts. It is interested in how moral reasoning and judgments take place,
how moral character forms, what sensitivity people have to moral evaluations, and
how people attribute and react to moral responsibility.[183]

One of its key topics is moral development or the question of how morality develops
on a psychological level from infancy to adulthood.[184] According to Lawrence
Kohlberg, children go through different stages of moral development as they
understand moral principles first as fixed rules governing reward and punishment,
then as conventional social norms, and later as abstract principles of what is
objectively right across societies.[185] A closely related question is whether and how
people can be taught to act morally.[186]

Evolutionary ethics, a closely related field, explores how evolutionary processes have
shaped ethics. One of its key ideas is that natural selection is responsible for moral
behavior and moral sensitivity. It interprets morality as an adaptation to evolutionary
pressure that augments fitness by offering a selective advantage.[187] Altruism, for
example, can provide benefits to group survival by improving cooperation.[188] Some
theorists, like Mark Rowlands, argue that morality is not limited to humans, meaning
that some non-human animals act based on moral emotions. Others explore
evolutionary precursors to morality in non-human animals.[189]

Descriptive ethics
Descriptive ethics, also called comparative ethics,[190] studies existing moral codes,
practices, and beliefs. It investigates and compares moral phenomena in different
societies and different groups within a society. It aims to provide a value-neutral and
empirical description without judging or justifying which practices are objectively
right. For instance, the question of how nurses think about the ethical implications of
abortion belongs to descriptive ethics. Another example is descriptive business
ethics, which describes ethical standards in the context of business, including
common practices, official policies, and employee opinions. Descriptive ethics also
has a historical dimension by exploring how moral practices and beliefs have
changed over time.[191]

Descriptive ethics is a multidisciplinary field that is covered by disciplines such as

anthropology, sociology, psychology, and history. Its empirical outlook contrasts with
the philosophical inquiry into normative questions, such as which ethical principles
are correct and how to justify them.[192]

History
 According to Laozi's teachings, which
are central to conceptions of ethics in
Daoism, humans should aim to live in
harmony with the natural order of the
universe.

The history of ethics studies how moral philosophy has developed and evolved in the
course of history.[193] It has its origin in ancient civilizations. In ancient Egypt, the
concept of Maat was used as an ethical principle to guide behavior and maintain
order by emphasizing the importance of truth, balance, and harmony.[194][n] In ancient
India starting in the 2nd millennium BCE,[196] the Vedas and later Upanishads were
composed as the foundational texts of Hindu philosophy and discussed the role of
duty and the consequences of one's actions.[197] Buddhist ethics originated in ancient
India between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE and advocated compassion, non-
violence, and the pursuit of enlightenment.[198] Ancient China in the 6th century BCE[o]
saw the emergence of Confucianism, which focuses on moral conduct and self-
cultivation by acting in agreement with virtues, and Daoism, which teaches that
human behavior should be in harmony with the natural order of the universe.[200]

In ancient Greece, Socrates (c. 469–399 BCE)[201] emphasized the importance of

inquiry into what a good life is by critically questioning established ideas and
exploring concepts like virtue, justice, courage, and wisdom.[202] According to Plato
(c. 428–347 BCE),[203] to lead a good life means that the different parts of the soul are
in harmony with each other.[204] For Aristotle (384–322 BCE),[205] a good life is
associated with being happy by cultivating virtues and flourishing.[206] Starting in the
4th century BCE, the close relation between right action and happiness was also
explored by the Hellenistic schools of Epicureanism, which recommended a simple
lifestyle without indulging in sensory pleasures, and Stoicism, which advocated living
in tune with reason and virtue while practicing self-mastery and becoming immune to
disturbing emotions.[207]

Ethical thought in the medieval period was strongly influenced by religious teachings.
Christian philosophers interpreted moral principles as divine commands originating
from God.[208] Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274 CE)[209] developed natural law ethics by
claiming that ethical behavior consists in following the laws and order of nature,
which he believed were created by God.[210] In the Islamic world, philosophers like Al-
Farabi (c. 878–950 CE)[211] and Avicenna (980–1037 CE)[212] synthesized ancient
Greek philosophy with the ethical teachings of Islam while emphasizing the harmony
between reason and faith.[213] In medieval India, Hindu philosophers like Adi Shankara
(c. 700–750 CE)[214] and Ramanuja (1017–1137 CE)[215][p] saw the practice of
spirituality to attain liberation as the highest goal of human behavior.[217]

G. E. Moore's book Principia

Ethica was partly responsible
for the emergence of
metaethics in the 20th century.

Moral philosophy in the modern period was characterized by a shift toward a secular
approach to ethics. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)[218] identified self-interest as the
primary drive of humans. He concluded that it would lead to "a war of every man
against every man" unless a social contract is established to avoid this outcome.[219]
David Hume (1711–1776)[220] thought that only moral sentiments, like empathy, can
motivate ethical actions while he saw reason not as a motivating factor but only as
what anticipates the consequences of possible actions.[221] Immanuel Kant (1724–
1804),[222] by contrast, saw reason as the source of morality. He formulated a
deontological theory, according to which the ethical value of actions depends on their
conformity with moral laws independent of their outcome. These laws take the form
of categorical imperatives, which are universal requirements that apply to every
situation.[223]

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)[224] saw Kant's categorical imperative on

its own as an empty formalism and emphasized the role of social institutions in
providing concrete content to moral duties.[225] According to the Christian philosophy
of Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855),[226] the demands of ethical duties are sometimes
suspended when doing God's will.[227] Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)[228]
formulated criticisms of both Christian and Kantian morality.[229] Another influential
development in this period was the formulation of utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham
(1748–1832)[230] and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873).[231] According to the utilitarian
doctrine, actions should promote happiness while reducing suffering and the right
action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of
people.[232]

Simone de Beauvoir explored

moral philosophy from the
perspective of
existentialism.[233]

An important development in 20th-century ethics in analytic philosophy was the

emergence of metaethics.[234] Significant early contributions to this field were made
by G. E. Moore (1873–1958),[235] who argued that moral values are essentially
different from other properties found in the natural world.[236] R. M. Hare (1919–
2002)[237] followed this idea in formulating his prescriptivism, which states that moral
statements are commands that, unlike regular judgments, are neither true nor
false.[238] J. L. Mackie (1917–1981)[239] suggested that every moral statement is false
since there are no moral facts [240] An influential argument for moral realism was
made by Derek Parfit (1942–2017),[241] who argued that morality concerns objective
features of reality that give people reasons to act in one way or another.[242] Bernard
Williams (1929–2003)[243] agreed with the close relation between reasons and ethics
but defended a subjective view instead that sees reasons as internal mental states
that may or may not reflect external reality.[244]

Another development in this period was the revival of ancient virtue ethics by
philosophers like Philippa Foot (1920–2010).[245] In the field of political philosophy,
John Rawls (1921–2002)[246] relied on Kantian ethics to analyze social justice as a
form of fairness.[247] In continental philosophy, phenomenologists such as Max
Scheler (1874–1928)[248] and Nicolai Hartmann (1882–1950)[249] built ethical
systems based on the claim that values have objective reality that can be investigated
using the phenomenological method.[250] Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–
1980)[251] and Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986),[252] by contrast, held that values are
created by humans and explored the consequences of this view in relation to
individual freedom, responsibility, and authenticity.[253] This period also saw the
emergence of feminist ethics, which questions traditional ethical assumptions
associated with a male perspective and puts alternative concepts, like care, at the
center.[254]

See also

Ethics committee
Index of ethics articles
Outline of ethics
Practical philosophy
Science of morality
References

Notes

a. According to some theorists,

teleological ethics is a wider term
than consequentialism because it
also covers certain forms of
virtue ethics.[19]
b. This state is known as
supererogation.[37]
c. A maxim is a rule that people can
adopt to guide their action, like "If
you want to make big money, you
should go into sales" or "Thou
shalt not commit murder".[54]
d. Some ethicists state that
contractualism is not a normative
ethical theory but a metaethical
theory because of its emphasis
on how moral norms are
justified.[61]
e. The ancient Greeks used the
word arête, which has the
meaning of both 'virtue' and
'excellence'.[69]
f. Ontology is the branch of
philosophy that studies the nature
and categories of being.[89]
g. This contrast is closely related to
the is–ought problem problem,
first articulated by David Hume,
which states that one cannot
deduce a normative statement
from a descriptive statement.[96]
The exact relation between these
types of statements is
disputed.[97]
h. Deontic logic provides a formal
system describing the logical
relations between these and
similar concepts.[100]
i. Some philosophers suggest that
there is moral luck, which occurs
when factors outside a person's
control influence the moral status
of that person.[105]
j. This position can be understood
by analogy to Einstein's theory of
relativity, which states that the
magnitude of physical properties
like mass, length, and duration
depends on the frame of
reference of the observer.[112]
k. For example, natural law ethics,
an influential position in Christian
ethics, says that morality is based
on a natural law created by
God.[118]
l. There are disagreements in the
academic literature about
whether they are synonyms or
whether one or the other is the
wider term.[173]
m. For example, the deontologist
David Ross holds that the
principles of right actions are
distinct from the principles of
value. He says that the terms
good and right mean different
things and should not be
confused with one another.[182]
n. The first explicit discussions of
Maat as a concept date to about
2100 BCE.[195]
o. Dates for the emergence of
Daoism are disputed and some
theorists suggest a later date
between the 4th and 3rd
centuries BCE.[199]
 p. Modern scholars have questioned
these traditionally cited dates,
suggesting that Ramanuja's life
ran from 1077 to 1157.[216]

Citations

1. Vogt 2017, pp. 42–43 (https://bo

oks.google.com/books?id=DXAu
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42)
Hollenbach 2002, p. 3 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=QEKQ
xJZq-a8C&pg=PA3)
2. Norman 2005, p. 622
Nagel 2006, Lead section
Crisp 2011, § 1. Ethics and
Metaethics
Deigh 1999, pp. 284–285
Mulvaney 2009, pp. vii–xi
3. Pritchard 2015, p. 5 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=EoH_Cw
AAQBAJ&pg=PA5)
Dittmer, § 1. Applied Ethics as
Distinct from Normative Ethics
and Metaethic
Jackson et al. 2021, pp. 1–2 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
SNlGEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1)
4. Nagel 2006, § What Is Morality?
Crisp 2011, § 1. Ethics and
Metaethics
Haiming 2021, pp. 1–2
Paul & Elder 2005, § Why a Mini-
Guide on Ethical Reasoning?
5. AHD staff 2022
Crisp 2011, § 1. Ethics and
Metaethics
Deigh 1999, pp. 284–285
6. Hoad 1993, p. 156
Liddell & Scott 1889, p. 349 (http
s://archive.org/details/intermedia
tegree00lidd/page/n353/mode/2
up?view=theater)
Proscurcin Junior 2014, pp. 162–
168
7. OED Staff 2002
Hoad 1993, p. 300
8. Athanassoulis 2012, pp. 22–27
Downie 2005, p. 271
Blum 2006
 9. Dittmer, § 1. Applied Ethics as
Distinct from Normative Ethics
and Metaethics
Kagan 1998, pp. 1–2
Gustafson 2020, pp. 1–2 (https://l
ink.springer.com/referenceworke
ntry/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_
1222-1)
Thomas 2022
10. Kagan 1998, pp. 1–3
11. Barsh & Lisewski 2013, p. 29 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=t
SzdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA29)
Kagan 1998, pp. 18–19
12. Sims 2017, p. 6 (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=J6csDwAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA6)
Barsh & Lisewski 2013, p. 29 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=t
SzdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA29)
Kagan 1998, pp. 7–10
Sulmasy & Sugarman 2010, p. 11
(https://books.google.com/book
s?id=QPvoTjDn0B4C&pg=PA11)
Pera & Tonder 2005, p. 7 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=S11
Eg3KjcOAC&pg=PA7)
13. Kagan 1998, p. 2
Gustafsson & Pietarinen 2016,
pp. 125–126 (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=UDUPDQAAQBA
J&pg=PA125)
14. Kagan 1998, pp. 2–3
15. Thomas 2022
Dittmer, § 1. Applied Ethics as
Distinct from Normative Ethics
and Metaethics
Kagan 1998, pp. 2, 11
16. Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
17. Hursthouse & Pettigrove 2023,
Lead section
Kagan 1998, p. 11
18. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 134 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=M7
ZFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA134)
19. McNaughton & Rawling 1998, § 1.
Act-consequentialism
20. Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, Lead
section
Haines, Lead section
Hooker 2023, § 1. Utilitarianism
21. Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism
Murthy 2009, p. 74 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=tzhEBAA
AQBAJ&pg=PA74)
22. Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, § 1.
Classic Utilitarianism
23. Carlson 2013, p. 1 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=VHIlBAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA1)
24. Dorsey 2020, pp. 97–98 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=d0D8
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA97)
25. Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, Lead
section
Haines, Lead section
26. Hooker 2005, pp. 162–164
Zimmerman 2015, p. 17
27. Hooker 2005, pp. 162–164
Edmundson 2004, p. 158 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=QYh
_vN7CqMEC&pg=PA158)
Brink 2020, p. 382 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=U0D8DwA
AQBAJ&pg=PA382)
28. Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, Lead
section
29. Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, Lead
section, § 5. Consequences of
What? Rights, Relativity, and
Rules
Hooker 2005, pp. 162–164
30. Haines, Lead section
Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, Lead
section, § 3. What Is Good?
Hedonistic Vs. Pluralistic
Consequentialisms
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism
Hooker 2005, pp. 162–164
31. Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism
32. Hooker 2005, pp. 162–164
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism
33. Hooker 2005, pp. 162–164
Cummiskey 1996, pp. 157–158 (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?i
d=ZYPmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA157)
34. Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, 5.
Consequences of What? Rights,
Relativity, and Rules
Hooker 2023, Lead section
Haines, § 1f. Rule
Consequentialism
Hooker 2005, p. 164
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism
35. Hooker 2005, pp. 162–164
Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, § 1.
Classic Utilitarianism, § 4. Which
Consequences? Actual Vs.
Expected Consequentialisms
36. Hooker 2005, p. 164
Slote 2005, pp. 938–939
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism
Singer 2016, pp. 47–48
Byron 2004, p. 9 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=bRFFsQE2B
rQC&pg=PA9)
37. Heyd 2019, Lead section
38. Littlejohn, § 1c. Mozi (c. 470-391
B.C.E.) and Mohism
Zhang 2023, p. 96 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=2ka8EAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA96)
39. Slote 2005, pp. 936, 938
Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, § 1.
Classic Utilitarianism
40. Moore 2019, Lead section, § 2.
Ethical Hedonism
41. Suikkanen 2020, p. 24 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=343m
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24)
42. Slote 2005, pp. 936, 938
Mendus 2005, p. 141 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=wYWGI
pa7Qr4C&pg=PA141)
Kivy 2011, p. 238 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=-c7ThZc5Rv
0C&pg=PA238)
43. Slote 2005, p. 938
Hooker 2014, p. 281 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=z3zBAgA
AQBAJ&pg=PA281)
Satyanarayana 2009, p. 76 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
gjiBTNR1g0kC&pg=PT76)
44. Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 2.
Deontological Theories
45. Simpson, § 6c. Deontological
Pluralism and Prima Facie Duties
Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
46. Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
Simpson, § 6c. Deontological
Pluralism and Prima Facie Duties
47. Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism, § 2.
Deontological Theories
Murthy 2009, p. 74 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=tzhEBAA
AQBAJ&pg=PA74)
48. Alexander & Moore 2021, § 2.
Deontological Theories
Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
49. Alexander & Moore 2021, § 2.
Deontological Theories
Hale 2017, p. 216 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=CQNLDgA
AQBAJ&pg=PA216)
Kumm & Walen 2014, p. 81 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
DXs9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81)
50. Alexander & Moore 2021, § 2.
Deontological Theories
51. Alexander & Moore 2021, § 2.4
Deontological Theories and Kant
52. Johnson & Cureton 2022, Lead
section
O'Neill, § 1. Kant's Ethics
Jankowiak, § 5. Moral Theory
Nadkarni 2011, p. 20 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=aoM8D
wAAQBAJ&pg=PT20)
53. Johnson & Cureton 2022, Lead
section
54. Kerstein 2009, p. 128 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=Bqema
b0aXx8C&pg=PA128)
Cardwell 2015, p. 85 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=iEbKBwA
AQBAJ&pg=PA85)
55. O'Neill, § 1. Kant's Ethics
Jankowiak, § 5. Moral Theory
56. Jankowiak, § 5. Moral Theory
Johnson & Cureton 2022, § 2.
Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty,
§ 3. Duty and Respect for Moral
Law
57. Austin, Lead section
Murphy 2019, Lead section
58. Miller 2004, p. 13 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=87hQ2Ajctt
EC&pg=PA13)
Flynn 2012, p. 167 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=pl3bToUqd
AIC&pg=PA167)
59. Flynn 2012, p. 167 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=pl3bToUqd
AIC&pg=PA167)
Myers & Noebel 2015, p. 241 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
hzeACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA241)
60. Alexander & Moore 2021, § 2.3
Contractualist Deontological
Theories
Sullivan 2001, p. 118 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=1vkgW
X7GRr0C&pg=PA118)
Ashford & Mulgan 2018, Lead
section
61. Alexander & Moore 2021, § 2.3
Contractualist Deontological
Theories
62. Friend, Lead section
63. Chakraborti 2023, p. 39 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=f5jXE
AAAQBAJ&pg=PA39)
Metselaar & Widdershoven 2016,
pp. 895–896 (https://link.springe
r.com/referenceworkentry/10.100
7/978-3-319-09483-0_145)
Finlayson & Rees 2023, § 3.3 The
Principles of Discourse Ethics
and Their Justification
64. Slote 2005a, pp. 947–948
Hursthouse & Pettigrove 2023,
Lead section
65. Hursthouse & Pettigrove 2023,
Lead section, § 1.1 Virtue
Slote 2005a, pp. 947–948
66. Hursthouse & Pettigrove 2023, §
1.2 Practical Wisdom
Caro, Marraffa & Vaccarezza
2021, pp. 31–33 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=QL4sEAAA
QBAJ&pg=PT31)
67. Hursthouse & Pettigrove 2023, §
2. Forms of Virtue Ethics
Athanassoulis, § 3. Virtue Ethical
Theories
68. Athanassoulis, § 3c. The Ethics of
Care
Sander-Staudt, Lead section
69. Hursthouse & Pettigrove 2023, §
1. Preliminaries
70. Skirbekk & Gilje 2017, p. 81 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
_I00e3SQAwMC&pg=PA81)
Kraut 2022, Lead section, § 5. The
Doctrine of the Mean
71. Hill & Blazejak 2021, p. 4 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=UQ
E5EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4)
72. Stephens, Lead section
Campbell 1985, pp. 327–328
73. Hursthouse 1999, p. 3 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=EbHm
CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA3)
74. Peterson 2020, pp. 65–66 (http
s://academic.oup.com/book/405
26/chapter-abstract/347844589?
redirectedFrom=fulltext)
Legg & Hookway 2021, § 6.2
Ethics
LaFollette 2007, § The Primacy of
Habits, § Morality Is a Habit
75. Bauman 1993, pp. 8–13
Kendall 2017, pp. 195–196 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
VyRIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA195)
76. Connor 2004, p. 15 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=dfpJqgY
C7x8C&pg=PA15)
Eaglestone 2004, pp. 182, 186–
187 (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=dfpJqgYC7x8C&pg=PA
182)
77. Shaver 2023, Lead section, § 2.
Ethical Egoism
McEwan 2001, p. 87 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=7ebzqK5
3ay8C&pg=PA87)
Fernando 2010, p. 2.6 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=_32bJ
s_nfNIC&pg=SA2-PA6)
78. Bollag 2006, pp. 15–16 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=zMs-
_Giyk6QC&pg=PA15)
Blidstein 1995, pp. 5–6 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/23260803)
79. Beach 1988, p. 36 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=OUtss9Yh
nvEC&pg=PA36)
Porter 2010, p. 73 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=KF6MauIH
GKgC&pg=PA73)
80. Verhoeven 2013, p. 27 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=RYpTA
QAAQBAJ&pg=PA27)
81. Chowdhury 2019, p. 494 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=qy2
bDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA494)
82. Beaman & Strumos 2022, p. 76 (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?i
d=0OV5EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA76)
83. Chakraborti 2023, p. 122 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=f5jX
EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122)
84. Wu & Wokutch 2008, p. 404 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
5m9yq0Eu-vsC&pg=PT474)
85. Ames 2013, p. 1681 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=KfeOAQ
AAQBAJ&pg=PA1685)
Brannigan 2010, p. 145 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=axvP
xswqNLQC&pg=PA145)
86. Ntuli 2002, pp. 58–60 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=h9HD
YNhYqfAC&pg=PA58)
Sinclair 2022, pp. 96–97 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=yhw
rEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96)
87. Harrison 2005, pp. 588–589
DeLapp, Lead section
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead section
88. DeLapp, Lead section, § 2. The
Normative Relevance of
Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead section,
§ 1. General Observations
89. Lowe 2005, p. 671 (https://www.o
xfordreference.com/display/10.1
093/acref/9780199264797.001.0
001/acref-9780199264797-e-18
06)
Campbell 2006, pp. 21–22
Craig 1998, Lead section
90. DeLapp, Lead section, § 4.
Ontological Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead section,
§ 3. Naturalism and Non-
naturalism
91. DeLapp, Lead section, § 3.
Semantic Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead section,
§ 4. Is/Ought and the Open
Question Argument
92. DeLapp, Lead section, § 6.
Epistemological Issues in
Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead section,
§ 5. Moral Epistemology
93. DeLapp, Lead section, § 5.
Psychology and Metaethics, 7.
Anthropological Considerations
Sayre-McCord 2023, Lead section,
§ 6. Morals, Motives, and
Reasons, § 7. Freedom and
Responsibility
94. McNamara & Van De Putte 2022,
Lead section, § 1.2 The
Traditional Scheme and the
Modal Analogies
Ribino & Lodato 2019, p. 3
95. Miller 2023, pp. 1–4
Lloyd & Hansen 2003, p. 21 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
agwMiPq5R1QC&pg=PA21)
96. Fieser 2000, p. 159 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=9Jl2x7G
1G90C&pg=PA159)
97. Hudson 1969, pp. 11–13 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=m_-
vCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA11)
98. O'Neill 2013, pp. 423–424 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
KfeOAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA423)
99. Stoljar 1984, pp. 36–37
Feibleman 2012, pp. 121–122
Corbin 1924, pp. 501–502
100. McNamara & Van De Putte 2022,
§ 1.2 The Traditional Scheme and
the Modal Analogies
Belzer, § 1. Standard Deontic
Logic (SDL)
101. Haiming 2021, pp. 75–76
Miller 2023, pp. 4–5
Calder 2022, Lead section
102. Miller 2023, pp. 4–5
103. Pick 2004, pp. 159–160
Haiming 2021, pp. 88–89
Miller 2023, pp. 5–6
104. Heyd 2019, Lead section
Miller 2023, pp. 5–6
105. Latus, Lead section
Nelkin 2023, Lead section
106. Talbert 2019, Lead section
Williams, Lead section, § 1.
Introduction
107. DeLapp, Lead section, § 4a. Moral
Realisms
Sayre-McCord 2023a, Lead
section
108. DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
109. Sayre-McCord 2023a, § 1. Moral
Disagreement
DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
110. DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms
Gowans 2021, Lead section, § 2.
Forms and Arguments
Westacott, Lead section
Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241
111. Westacott, § 2g. Moral Relativism
Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical
Moral Relativism
112. Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241
113. DeLapp, § 4b. Moral Relativisms
Gowans 2021, § 6. Metaethical
Moral Relativism
114. Dreier 2007, p. 241
115. Dreier 2007, pp. 240–241
Krellenstein 2017, pp. 75–90 (http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/446315
29)
116. Dreier 2007, pp. 241–242
117. Lutz 2023, Lead section, § 1.
What Is Moral Naturalism?
DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
118. Murphy 2019a, § 1. Key Features
of Natural Law Theories
Lisska 2015, p. 635 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=Cgg1DQ
AAQBAJ&pg=PA635)
DeNicola 2018, p. 66 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=5uCGD
wAAQBAJ&pg=PA66)
119. Lutz 2023, § 1. What Is Moral
Naturalism?, § 2. Descriptivism
and Reductivism
DeLapp, § 4a. Moral Realisms
120. FitzPatrick 2011, pp. 7–8 (https://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.105
7/9780230294899_2)
Ridge 2019, Lead section
121. Ridge 2019, § 1. The Naturalistic
Fallacy
Werner 2020, p. 148 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=rWjxDwA
AQBAJ&pg=PA148)
122. DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism Versus
Non-Cognitivism
Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
123. Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
Sayre-McCord 1988, p. 10 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=-
msmrkE-67IC&pg=PA10)
124. Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
DeLapp, § 3a. Cognitivism Versus
Non-Cognitivism
Moreland & Craig 2017, p. 417 (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id
=deDeDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA417)
125. DeLapp, § 6. Epistemological
Issues in Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral
Epistemology
126. Sinnott-Armstrong 2019, Lead
section, § 1. Varieties of Moral
Skepticism, § 2. A Presumption
Against Moral Skepticism?
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 5. Moral
Epistemology
127. Brun 2017, pp. 195–196
Brown & Fehige 2019, Lead
section
Baggini & Fosl 2024, p. 284 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
mZvfEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA284)
128. Brun 2017, p. 195
Woollard & Howard-Snyder 2022,
§ 3. The Trolley Problem and the
Doing/Allowing Distinction
Rini, § 8. Moral Cognition and
Moral Epistemology
129. Brun 2017, p. 195
Brown & Fehige 2019, § 1.
Important Characteristics of
Thought Experiments
130. DeLapp, § 5. Psychology and
Metaethics
Sayre-McCord 2023, § 6. Morals,
Motives, and Reasons
Rosati 2016, Lead section, § 3.
Moral Judgment and Motivation
Reilly 1977, pp. 101–102
Milevski 2017, p. 3
131. Rosati 2016, Lead section, § 3.
Moral Judgment and Motivation
132. Darwall 2003, p. 17
Chakraborti 2023, pp. 619–620 (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?i
d=f5jXEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA619)
133. Almond 1998, Lead section, § 1.
Definitions
Dittmer, Lead section, § 1.
Applied Ethics as Distinct from
Normative Ethics and Metaethics
Petersen & Ryberg 2022
Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175 (http
s://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
ce/article/abs/pii/B97801237393
22000168)
134. Winkler 1998, pp. 175–176 (http
s://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
ce/article/abs/pii/B97801237393
22000168)
135. Winkler 1998, pp. 175–176 (http
s://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
ce/article/abs/pii/B97801237393
22000168)
Gordon, "Abortion", Lead section,
§ 2. Personhood
136. Beaucham 2003, pp. 7–9
137. Beaucham 2003, pp. 7–9
Winkler 1998, pp. 176–117 (http
s://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
ce/article/abs/pii/B97801237393
22000168)
Almond 1998, § 2. Theory and
Practice
Fives 2016, p. 171 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=f78YDAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA171)
138. Almond 1998, § 2. Theory and
Practice
139. Almond 1998, § 1. Definitions
140. Ryberg 2010, p. 3 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=ZsCRosM3
67gC&pg=PA3)
Meynell & Paron 2023, p. 11 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
VrTFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11)
Chakraborti 2023, p. 620 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=f5jX
EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA620)
Winkler 1998, pp. 174–175 (http
s://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
ce/article/abs/pii/B97801237393
22000168)
141. Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Gordon, "Bioethics", Lead section
Gillon 1998, pp. 267–268
142. Gordon, "Bioethics", Lead section,
§ 4. The Idea of Moral Status in
Bioethics
Dittmer, § 4a. Theories of Moral
Standing and Personhood
143. Holmes 2018, pp. 288–289
Gordon, "Bioethics", § 3d.
Environmental Ethics
144. Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Gordon, "Bioethics", Lead section,
§ 1. Preliminary Distinctions
145. Gordon, "Bioethics", Lead section,
§ 3a. Introduction
Peppard 2005, p. xviii (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=qFBgL8
b4_JgC&pg=PR18)
Frey 1998, Lead section
146. Gordon, "Bioethics", Lead section,
§ 3b. Medical Ethics
147. Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Gordon, "Bioethics", Lead section,
§ 3b. Medical Ethics
148. Dittmer, § 3. Bioethics
Delden 1998, pp. 200–201
149. Wilson, Lead section
Gordon, "Bioethics", Lead section,
§ 3c. Animal Ethics
Holmes 2018, pp. 317–319
150. Holmes 2018, pp. 333–334
151. Francione 2004, pp. 115–116 (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id
=ocbdJD2oUW0C&pg=PA115)
Yount 2007, p. 26 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=R4jQ_upQ
ZroC&pg=PA26)
152. Gordon, "Bioethics", § 3d.
Environmental Ethics
Sandler 1998, pp. 105–106
Brennan & Lo 2022, Lead section
153. Brennan & Lo 2022, § 1.
Introduction: The Challenge of
Environmental Ethics
Gordon, "Bioethics", § 3d.
Environmental Ethics
154. Gordon, "Bioethics", § 1.
Preliminary Distinctions, § 3d.
Environmental Ethics
Cochrane, § 2. Radical Ecology
Smith 2018, p. 36 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=LFBVDwA
AQBAJ&pg=PA36)
Roser & Seidel 2016, p. i (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=gislD
wAAQBAJ&pg=PR1)
155. Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366
Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics
156. Dittmer, § 2. Business Ethics
Rendtorff 1998, pp. 365–366
157. Airaksinen 1998
Dittmer, § 5. Professional Ethics
158. Airaksinen 1998, pp. 617–620
159. Catalano 2022, p. 17 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=bYhyEA
AAQBAJ&pg=PA17)
160. Parker & Evans 2007, pp. 22–23
(https://books.google.com/book
s?id=-3dVoptUyrwC&pg=PA22)
161. Medvecky & Leach 2019, p. 35 (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id
=NpO7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35)
Mentan 2022, p. 280 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=OwbOE
AAAQBAJ&pg=PA280)
Patching & Hirst 2013, p. 69 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
FFclAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA69)
162. Kvalnes 2023, pp. 101, 105 (http
s://link.springer.com/chapter/10.
1007/978-3-031-28971-2_12)
Christians 2005
163. ten Have & Patrão Neves 2021,
p. 633 (https://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-5416
1-3_310)
Elrod & Smith 2005
164. Braunack-Mayer, Street & Palmer
1998, pp. 321–322
165. Braunack-Mayer, Street & Palmer
1998, pp. 323–326
Robson & Tsou 2023, pp. 16–17
(https://books.google.com/book
s?id=3gumEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT1
6)
166. Tzafestas 2015, p. 2 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=EdpECg
AAQBAJ&pg=PA2)
Mitcham 2022, p. 101 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=0uF-E
AAAQBAJ&pg=PA101)
167. Frowe 2021, Lead section
Lazar 2020, Lead section, § 3.
Jus Ad Bellum, § 4. Jus in Bello
Sorabji & Rodin 2007, pp. 2–3
168. Wolfendale 2007, pp. 47–78 (http
s://link.springer.com/chapter/10.
1057/9780230592803_4)
Baumann 2007, pp. 34–35
169. Fotion 1998, pp. 121, 123–124,
126
170. Hall & Sabl 2022, pp. 1–2 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=4bh
iEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1)
Gay 2006, p. 189 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=VKprw2w_I
JQC&pg=PA189)
171. Maxwell 2023, pp. 609–610 (http
s://link.springer.com/referencewo
rkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-2276
7-8_1323)
172. Boonin 2022, p. 1 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=8L1dEAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA1)
173. Schroeder 2021, Lead section
Hirose & Olson 2015, pp. 1–2 (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id
=uvzVBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1)
Grenz, Guretzki & Nordling 2010,
p. 18 (https://books.google.com/
books?id=Iv-LCwAAQBAJ&pg=P
A18)
174. Smith & Thomas, Lead section
Schroeder 2021, Lead section
Hirose & Olson 2015, pp. 1–2 (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id
=uvzVBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1)
175. Schroeder 2021, § 2.1 Intrinsic
Value
Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, Lead
section
176. Schroeder 2021, § 2.2
Monism/Pluralism
Zimmerman & Bradley 2019, § 1.
What Has Intrinsic Value?
de Bres 2014, pp. 336–338 (http
s://www.cambridge.org/core/boo
ks/abs/cambridge-rawls-lexicon/
hedonism/602FBE3D4ACFED442
2C43BCCBA3BAB48)
177. Schroeder 2021, Lead section
Cowan 2020, pp. 17–18 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=_2jD
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17)
Stecker 2010, pp. 525–526
178. Hirose & Olson 2015, pp. 1–2 (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id
=uvzVBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1)
179. Kupperman 2005, pp. 73–74
180. Calida 2022, pp. 77–79 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=2LVr
EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA77)
Grenz, Guretzki & Nordling 2010,
p. 18 (https://books.google.com/
books?id=Iv-LCwAAQBAJ&pg=P
A18)
181. Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1.
Deontology's Foil:
Consequentialism
Schroeder 2021, § 3. Relation to
the Deontic
182. Skelton 2022, § 4. Ross's
Distinctive Moral Framework: The
Right and the Good
Simpson, § 6. Ross's Ethical
Theory: Main Components and
Principles
183. Doris et al. 2020, Lead section, §
Introduction: What Is Moral
Psychology?
Thoma 2015, pp. 230–231 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
SqBhCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA230)
Rudy-Hiller 2022, p. 509 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=j81k
EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA509)
184. Puka, Lead section, § 1. What It Is
185. Linn 1994, p. 330 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=vayVldaXP-
0C&pg=PA330)
Eysenck 2004, pp. 586–588 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=r
U9MRvYIh5YC&pg=PA586)
186. Meyer 2023, Abstract, lead
section
Matsuba, Murzyn & Hart 2011,
pp. 181–182
187. Schroeder, Lead section
Mesoudi & Danielson 2008,
pp. 229–230
Rice 2009, p. 153 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=YRcAVvmE
6eMC&pg=PA153)
188. Rice 2009, p. 153 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=YRcAVvmE
6eMC&pg=PA153)
Post 2011, p. 118 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=PnP6yF_3
gfYC&pg=PA118)
189. Monsó, Benz-Schwarzburg &
Bremhorst 2018, p. 283
Fitzpatrick 2017, pp. 1151–1152
190. Chism 2016, p. 207 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=fIaHCgA
AQBAJ&pg=PA207)
191. Sims 2017, p. 6 (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=J6csDwAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA6)
Barsh & Lisewski 2013, p. 29 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=t
SzdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA29)
Sulmasy & Sugarman 2010, p. 11
(https://books.google.com/book
s?id=QPvoTjDn0B4C&pg=PA11)
Pera & Tonder 2005, p. 7 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=S11
Eg3KjcOAC&pg=PA7)
Kagan 1998, pp. 7–10
192. Sulmasy & Sugarman 2010, p. 11
(https://books.google.com/book
s?id=QPvoTjDn0B4C&pg=PA11)
Pera & Tonder 2005, p. 7 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=S11
Eg3KjcOAC&pg=PA7)
Funk 2021, p. 175 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=kK4SEAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA475)
193. Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 394
Norman 2005, p. 622
194. Brandon 1975, p. 474 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=eBy8AA
AAIAAJ&pg=PA474)
Ortiz 2020, Preface (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=he7QDw
AAQBAJ&pg=PT7)
Karenga 2004, pp. 175–176 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
ams2OPbmHMUC&pg=PA175)
Armour 2001, p. 134 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=3z5OzH
gtK4sC&pg=PA134)
195. Lipson & Binkley 2012, p. 80 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
uVt7c3UX-zMC&pg=PA80)
196. Doniger 2010, p. 103 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=nNsXZk
dHvXUC&pg=PA103)
197. Perrett 2016, Indian Philosophy: A
Brief Historical Overview, The
Ancient Period of Indian
Philosophy
Pappu 2013, p. 400 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=sn-qD-gC
X18C&pg=PA400)
Sinha 2014, pp. 81–82 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=Vp_cB
AAAQBAJ&pg=PA81)
198. Thapar 1978, p. 48 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=fK3VTUr
WsD0C&pg=PA48)
Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy
Dalai Lama 2007
199. Dynes 2016, p. 60 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=pxjOEAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA60)
Littlejohn, § 2. Classical Sources
for Our Understanding of Daoism
200. Littlejohn, § 1b. Confucius (551-
479 B.C.E.) of the Analects, § 1e.
The Daodejing
Boyd & Timpe 2021, p. 64 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
OIskEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA64)
Slingerland 2007, p. 77 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=gSRea
ja3V3IC&pg=PA77)
Junru 2019, p. 87 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=jaOZEAAAQ
BAJ&pg=PT87)
201. Dehsen 2013, p. 178
202. Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 394–
396, 398
203. Dehsen 2013, p. 156
204. Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 396–
398
205. Dehsen 2013, p. 13
206. Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 397–
398
207. Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 399–
400
Grayling 2019, § Epicureanism, §
Stoicism
208. Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, p. 401
209. Dehsen 2013, p. 185
210. Norman 2005, p. 623
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 403–
404
211. Dehsen 2013, p. 63
212. Dehsen 2013, p. 19
213. Mattila 2022, p. 2 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=5rptEAAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA2)
Sajoo 2008, p. 60 (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=C7aKDwAA
QBAJ&pg=PA60)
214. Dehsen 2013, p. 175
215. Dehsen 2013, p. 160
216. Ranganathan, 1. Rāmānuja's Life
and Works
Sydnor 2012, p. 20
217. Dalal 2021, Lead section
Ranganathan, Lead section, § 4b.
Rāmānuja's Soteriology
Grayling 2019, Indian Philosophy
Dalal 2010, p. 465 (https://books.
google.com/books?id=DH0vmD8
ghdMC&pg=PA465)
218. Dehsen 2013, p. 88
219. Norman 2005, p. 624
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 404–
406
220. Dehsen 2013, p. 91
221. Norman 2005, p. 624
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 408–
409
222. Dehsen 2013, p. 105
223. Norman 2005, p. 625
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 410–
412
224. Dehsen 2013, p. 82
225. Norman 2005, p. 625
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 414–
415
226. Dehsen 2013, p. 110
227. Cuneo 2020, Teleological
Suspension of the Ethical (http
s://www.oxfordreference.com/dis
play/10.1093/acref/9780191835
759.001.0001/acref-9780191835
759-e-117)
Gellman 1994, p. 45 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=LYOpcYX
hCkMC&pg=PA45)
228. Dehsen 2013, p. 144
229. Leiter 2021, § 1.1 Scope of the
Critique: Morality in the Pejorative
Sense
Bailey 2013, p. 147 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=xXyHAA
AAQBAJ&pg=PA147)
230. Dehsen 2013, p. 25
231. Dehsen 2013, p. 132
232. Norman 2005, pp. 624–625
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 412–
414
233. Bergoffen & Burke 2023, Lead
section, § 5. The Ethics of
Ambiguity: Bad Faith, the Appeal,
the Artist
234. Norman 2005, p. 626
235. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 443
236. Norman 2005, p. 626
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 418–
419
237. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 294
238. Norman 2005, p. 626
Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 429–
430
239. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 406
240. Miller 2023, pp. 14–15
Sayre-McCord 1988, p. 10 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=-
msmrkE-67IC&pg=PA10)
241. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 504
242. McDonald 2017, pp. 95–96 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=
zCAxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT95)
Lazari-Radek & Singer 2017,
pp. 282–283
243. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 737
244. Chappell & Smyth 2023, § 5.
Internal and External Reasons
Kriegel 1999, pp. 281–282
245. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 262
Norman 2005, p. 627
246. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 589
247. Das 2021, pp. 118–119 (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=a4w4
EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT118)
Wenar 2021, § 4. Justice as
Fairness: Justice Within a Liberal
Society
248. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 620
249. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 296
250. Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 421–
422
251. Dehsen 2013, p. 168
252. Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 74
253. Abelson & Nielsen 2006, pp. 426–
428
Bergoffen & Burke 2023, Lead
section, § 5. The Ethics of
Ambiguity: Bad Faith, the Appeal,
the Artist
254. Norlock 2019, Lead section
Imafidon 2015, p. 211 (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=5_i_C
QAAQBAJ&pg=PT211)

Sources
Abelson, Raziel; Nielsen, Kai (2006).
"Ethics, History of". In Borchert,
Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Vol. 3 (2. ed.).
Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-866072-
1.
AHD staff (2022). "Ethics" (https://
www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc
h.html?q=ethics&submit.x=58&sub
mit.y=14) . The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language.
HarperCollins. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/2024010613202
7/https://www.ahdictionary.com/w
ord/search.html?q=ethics&submit.x
=58&submit.y=14) from the
original on January 6, 2024.
Retrieved January 6, 2024.
Airaksinen, T. (1998). "Professional
Ethics". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics
(2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-
0-12-373932-2.
Alexander, Larry; Moore, Michael
(2021). "Deontological Ethics" (http
s://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethic
s-deontological/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20230620
084241/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/ethics-deontological/)
from the original on June 20, 2023.
Retrieved December 30, 2023.
Almond, Brenda (1998). "Applied
Ethics" (https://www.rep.routledge.
com/articles/thematic/applied-ethi
cs/v-1) . Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L005-
1 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780
415249126-L005-1) . ISBN 978-0-
415-25069-6. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/2024020110331
6/https://www.rep.routledge.com/a
rticles/thematic/applied-ethics/v-
1) from the original on February 1,
2024. Retrieved December 23,
2023.
Ames, Roger T. (2013). "Taoist
Ethics" (https://books.google.com/
books?id=KfeOAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA
1685) . In Becker, Lawrence C.;
Becker, Charlotte B. (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Ethics. Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-135-35096-3. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Armour, Robert A. (2001). Gods and
Myths of Ancient Egypt (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=3z5OzHg
tK4sC&pg=PA134) . American
University in Cairo Press. ISBN 978-
977-424-669-2.
Ashford, Elizabeth; Mulgan, Tim
(2018). "Contractualism" (https://pl
ato.stanford.edu/entries/contractu
alism/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20201109215914/https://plat
o.stanford.edu/entries/contractual
ism/) from the original on
November 9, 2020. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Athanassoulis, Nafsika (2012).
Virtue Ethics (https://books.google.
com/books?id=DaFVIDIXicQC) .
Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-4411-
6287-8. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
Austin, Michael W. "Divine
Command Theory" (https://iep.utm.
edu/divine-command-theory/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20231231094932/https://iep.
utm.edu/divine-command-theory/)
from the original on December 31,
2023. Retrieved December 31,
2023.
Baggini, Julian; Fosl, Peter S.
(2024). The Ethics Toolkit: A
Compendium of Ethical Concepts
and Methods (https://books.google.
com/books?id=mZvfEAAAQBAJ&p
g=PA284) . John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN 978-1-119-89197-0. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
Bailey, Tom (2013). "Nietzsche the
Kantian?" (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=xXyHAAAAQBAJ&pg=
PA147) . In Gemes, Ken;
Richardson, John (eds.). The Oxford
Handbook of Nietzsche. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
953464-7.
Barsh, Adele; Lisewski, Amy (2013).
"Library Managers and Ethical
Leadership: A Survey of Current
Practices from the Perspective of
Business Ethics" (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=tSzdAAAAQBAJ
&pg=PA29) . In Besnoy, Amy (ed.).
Ethics And Integrity In Libraries.
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-99372-
8. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Bauman, Zygmunt (1993).
Postmodern Ethics. Blackwell.
ISBN 978-0-631-18693-9.
Baumann, Dieter (2007). "Military
Ethics: A Task for Armies". Military
Medicine. 172 (Supplement 2): 34–
38.
doi:10.7205/MILMED.173.Supplem
ent_2.34 (https://doi.org/10.7205%
2FMILMED.173.Supplement_2.34) .
ISSN 1930-613X (https://search.wo
rldcat.org/issn/1930-613X) .
PMID 18214134 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/18214134) .
Beach, Waldo (1988). Christian
Ethics in the Protestant Tradition (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=
OUtss9YhnvEC&pg=PA36) .
Westminster John Knox Press.
ISBN 978-0-8042-0793-5. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Beaman, Lori G.; Strumos, Lauren
(2022). "Smudging, Yoga, Ethical
Veganism: Exploring the
Boundaries of Religious and
Spiritual Practice in Law" (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=0OV5E
AAAQBAJ&pg=PA76) . In Mossière,
Géraldine (ed.). New Spiritualities
and the Cultures of Well-being.
Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-
06263-6. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Beaucham, Tom L. (2003). "The
Nature of Applied Ethics". In Frey, R.
G.; Wellman, Christopher Heath
(eds.). A Companion to Applied
Ethics (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=Qws8gf4f4iUC) . John
Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-
7190-8. Retrieved December 27,
2023.
Belzer, Marvin. "Deontic Logic" (http
s://www.rep.routledge.com/article
s/thematic/deontic-logic/v-1) .
Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Routledge. Archived (ht
tps://web.archive.org/web/202401
07191504/https://www.rep.routled
ge.com/articles/thematic/deontic-l
ogic/v-1) from the original on
January 7, 2024. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
Bergoffen, Debra; Burke, Megan
(2023). "Simone de Beauvoir" (http
s://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bea
uvoir/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Retrieved June 23, 2024.
Blidstein, Gerald J. (1995). "Tikkun
Olam" (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/23260803) . Tradition: A Journal
of Orthodox Jewish Thought. 29 (2):
5–43. ISSN 0041-0608 (https://sear
ch.worldcat.org/issn/0041-0608) .
JSTOR 23260803 (https://www.jsto
r.org/stable/23260803) . Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2024
0101130208/https://www.jstor.org/
stable/23260803) from the
original on January 1, 2024.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Blum, Lawrence (2006). "Ethics and
Morality". In Borchert, Donald (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://
www.encyclopedia.com/humanitie
s/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcri
pts-and-maps/ethics-and-morality)
(2 ed.). Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-
865790-5. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20230607022901/ht
tps://www.encyclopedia.com/huma
nities/encyclopedias-almanacs-tran
scripts-and-maps/ethics-and-mora
lity) from the original on June 7,
2023. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
Bollag, David (2006). "Jewish
Religious Law" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=zMs-_Giyk6QC&p
g=PA15) . In Hurwitz, Peter Joel;
Picard, Jacques; Steinberg,
Avraham (eds.). Jewish Ethics and
the Care of End-of-life Patients: A
Collection of Rabbinical, Bioethical,
Philosophical, and Juristic Opinions.
KTAV Publishing House, Inc.
ISBN 978-0-88125-921-6. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Boonin, David (2022). "1.
Introduction: Sex, Ethics, and
Philosophy". In Boonin, David (ed.).
The Palgrave Handbook of Sexual
Ethics (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=8L1dEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA
1) . Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-
030-87786-6. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Boyd, Craig A.; Timpe, Kevin (2021).
The Virtues: A Very Short
Introduction (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=OIskEAAAQBAJ&pg=
PA64) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-258407-6. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Brandon, S. G. F. (1975). "The Idea
of the Judgment of the Dead in
Ancient Near East" (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=eBy8AAAAIA
AJ&pg=PA474) . In Hinnells, John
R. (ed.). Mithraic Studies:
Proceedings of the First
International Congress of Mithraic
Studies. Manchester University
Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-0536-7.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Brannigan, Michael C. (2010).
Striking a Balance: A Primer in
Traditional Asian Values (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=axvPxs
wqNLQC&pg=PA145) . Rowman &
Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7391-3846-5.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Braunack-Mayer, A. J.; Street, J. M.;
Palmer, N. (1998). "Technology,
Ethics Of: Overview". In Chadwick,
Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied
Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press.
ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Brennan, Andrew; Lo, Norva Y. S.
(2022). "Environmental Ethics" (http
s://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethic
s-environmental/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20190804
112152/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/ethics-environmental/)
from the original on August 4, 2019.
Retrieved December 24, 2023.
Brink, David O. (2020).
"Consequentialism, the
Separateness of Persons, and
Aggregation" (https://books.google.
com/books?id=U0D8DwAAQBAJ&p
g=PA382) . In Portmore, Douglas
W. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
Consequentialism. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-090533-0.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Brown, James Robert; Fehige,
Yiftach (2019). "Thought
Experiments" (https://plato.stanfor
d.edu/entries/thought-experimen
t/) . Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2017
1121022040/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/thought-experiment/)
from the original on November 21,
2017. Retrieved October 29, 2021.
Brun, Georg (2017). "Thought
Experiments in Ethics". The
Routledge Companion to Thought
Experiments (https://www.taylorfra
ncis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9
781315175027-12/thought-experim
ents-ethics-georg-brun) .
Routledge. pp. 195–210.
doi:10.4324/9781315175027-12 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.4324%2F97813151
75027-12) . ISBN 978-1-315-17502-
7. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20220707210145/https://w
ww.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edi
t/10.4324/9781315175027-12/tho
ught-experiments-ethics-georg-bru
n) from the original on July 7,
2022. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2009).
The Blackwell Dictionary of Western
Philosophy (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=M7ZFEAAAQBAJ&pg
=PA134) . John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN 978-1-4051-9112-8. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Byron, Michael (2004).
"Introduction" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=bRFFsQE2BrQC&p
g=PA9) . Satisficing and
Maximizing: Moral Theorists on
Practical Reason. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
01005-4. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Calder, Todd (2022). "The Concept
of Evil" (https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/concept-evil/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
Calida, Behnido Y. (2022). "System
Governance" (https://books.google.
com/books?id=2LVrEAAAQBAJ&pg
=PA77) . In Keating, Charles B.;
Katina, Polinpapilinho F.; Jr, Charles
W. Chesterman; Pyne, James C.
(eds.). Complex System
Governance: Theory and Practice.
Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-
93852-9. Retrieved January 4,
2024.
Campbell, Keith (2006). "Ontology".
In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 7:
Oakeshott – Presupposition (https://
www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy
-and-religion/philosophy/philosoph
y-terms-and-concepts/ontology)
(2 ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan
Reference. ISBN 978-0-02-865787-
5. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20210129034430/https://w
ww.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-a
nd-religion/philosophy/philosophy-t
erms-and-concepts/ontology)
from the original on January 29,
2021. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
Campbell, Keith (1985). "Self-
mastery and Stoic Ethics".
Philosophy. 60 (233): 327–340.
doi:10.1017/S0031819100070170
(https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0031
819100070170) . ISSN 1469-817X
(https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1
469-817X) . S2CID 144863967 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:144863967) .
Cardwell, Charles (2015). Hornbook
Ethics (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=iEbKBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA8
5) . Hackett Publishing. ISBN 978-
1-62466-374-1.
Carlson, E. (2013).
Consequentialism Reconsidered (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=
VHIlBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1) .
Springer Science & Business
Media. ISBN 978-94-015-8553-8.
Caro, Mario De; Marraffa, Massimo;
Vaccarezza, Maria Silvia (2021).
"The Priority of Phronesis: How to
Rescue Virtue Theory From Its
Critics" (https://books.google.com/
books?id=QL4sEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT
31) . In Caro, Mario De; Vaccarezza,
Maria Silvia (eds.). Practical
Wisdom: Philosophical and
Psychological Perspectives.
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-40605-
4. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Catalano, George D. (2022).
Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice,
and the Earth, Second Edition (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=bY
hyEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA17) . Springer
Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-02115-2.
Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Chakraborti, Chhanda (2023).
Introduction to Ethics: Concepts,
Theories, and Contemporary Issues
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=f5jXEAAAQBAJ) . Springer
Nature. ISBN 978-981-99-0707-6.
Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Chappell, Sophie-Grace; Smyth,
Nicholas (2023). "Bernard Williams"
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
williams-bernard/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20220710
193743/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/williams-bernard/) from
the original on July 10, 2022.
Retrieved January 8, 2024.
Chism, Lisa Astalos (2016). "The
DNP Graduate as Ethical
Consultant". In Chism, Lisa Astalos
(ed.). The Doctor of Nursing Practice
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=fIaHCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA207)
(3 ed.). Jones & Bartlett. ISBN 978-
1-284-06625-8.
Chowdhury, Sanjoy Barua (2019).
"28. Ethical Challenges for Global
Education: A Buddhist Perspective"
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=qy2bDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA494) . In
Thien, Thich Duc; Tu, Thich Nhat
(eds.). Buddhist Approach to Global
Education in Ethics. Vietnam
Buddhist University Publications.
ISBN 978-604-89-7928-7. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Christians, Clifford G. (2005).
"Communication Ethics". In
Mitcham, Carl (ed.). Encyclopedia of
Science, Technology and Ethics (htt
ps://www.encyclopedia.com/scienc
e/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcri
pts-and-maps/communication-ethi
cs) . Vol. 3. Thomson Gale.
ISBN 978-0-02-865834-6. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2023
0218223753/https://www.encyclop
edia.com/science/encyclopedias-al
manacs-transcripts-and-maps/com
munication-ethics) from the
original on February 18, 2023.
Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Cochrane, Alasdair. "Environmental
Ethics" (https://iep.utm.edu/envi-et
h/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20190627012029/h
ttps://www.iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/)
from the original on June 27, 2019.
Retrieved December 24, 2023.
Connor, Steven (2004).
"Introduction" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=dfpJqgYC7x8C&p
g=PA15) . The Cambridge
Companion to Postmodernism.
Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-64840-0.
Corbin, Arthur L. (1924). "Rights
and Duties". The Yale Law Journal.
33 (5): 501–527.
doi:10.2307/788021 (https://doi.or
g/10.2307%2F788021) .
ISSN 0044-0094 (https://search.wo
rldcat.org/issn/0044-0094) .
JSTOR 788021 (https://www.jstor.o
rg/stable/788021) .
Cowan, Steven B. (2020).
"Introduction to Part One" (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=_2jDD
wAAQBAJ&pg=PA17) . In Cowan,
Steven B. (ed.). Problems in Value
Theory: An Introduction to
Contemporary Debates.
Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-350-
14741-6. Retrieved January 4,
2024.
Craig, Edward (1998). "Ontology" (ht
tps://www.rep.routledge.com/articl
es/thematic/ontology/v-1) .
Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-
N039-1 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2
F9780415249126-N039-1) .
ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Retrieved
June 17, 2024.
Crisp, Roger (2005). "Deontological
Ethics". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ht
tps://philpapers.org/rec/HONTOC-
2) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2021
0129082636/https://philpapers.or
g/rec/HONTOC-2) from the
original on January 29, 2021.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Crisp, Roger (2011). "Ethics".
Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (https://www.rep.routled
ge.com/articles/overview/ethics/v-
2) . Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L132-
2 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780
415249126-L132-2) . ISBN 978-0-
415-25069-6. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/2023080121452
4/https://www.rep.routledge.com/a
rticles/overview/ethics/v-2) from
the original on August 1, 2023.
Retrieved January 7, 2024.
Cummiskey, David (1996). Kantian
Consequentialism (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=ZYPmCwAAQB
AJ&pg=PA157) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509453-4.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Cuneo, Terence (2020).
"Teleological Suspension of the
Ethical". A Dictionary of Ethics (http
s://www.oxfordreference.com/displ
ay/10.1093/acref/9780191835759.
001.0001/acref-9780191835759-e-
117) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-183575-9.
Dalai Lama (2007). "Buddhism and
India" (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=hCwpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT
127) . In Jahanbegloo, Ramin (ed.).
India Revisited: Conversations on
Continuity and Change. Oxford
University Press India. ISBN 978-0-
19-908788-4.
Dalal, Roshen (2010). Hinduism: An
Alphabetical Guide (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=DH0vmD8ghd
MC&pg=PA465) . Penguin Books
India. ISBN 978-0-14-341421-6.
Dalal, Neil (2021). "Śaṅkara" (http
s://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sha
nkara/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20220127111736/https://plat
o.stanford.edu/entries/shankara/)
from the original on January 27,
2022. Retrieved December 18,
2023.
Darwall, Stephen L. (2003).
"Theories of Ethics". In Frey, R. G.;
Wellman, Christopher Heath (eds.).
A Companion to Applied Ethics (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=Q
ws8gf4f4iUC) . John Wiley & Sons.
ISBN 978-1-4051-7190-8. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Das, Kantilal (2021). The Paradigm
of Justice: A Contemporary Debate
Between John Rawls and Amartya
Sen (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=a4w4EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT11
8) . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-
43681-5. Retrieved December 26,
2023.
de Bres, Helena (2014).
"Hedonism". The Cambridge Rawls
Lexicon (https://www.cambridge.or
g/core/books/abs/cambridge-rawl
s-lexicon/hedonism/602FBE3D4AC
FED4422C43BCCBA3BAB48) .
Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-19294-1.
Dehsen, Christian von (September
13, 2013). Philosophers and
Religious Leaders (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=cU7cAAAAQB
AJ) . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-
95102-3. Retrieved May 28, 2023.
Deigh, John (1999). "Ethics". In
Audi, Robert (ed.). The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy (https://phi
lpapers.org/rec/AUDTCD-2) .
Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-1-107-64379-6. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2021
0414132344/https://philpapers.or
g/rec/AUDTCD-2) from the original
on April 14, 2021. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
DeLapp, Kevin M. "Metaethics" (http
s://iep.utm.edu/metaethi/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20240123102700/https://iep.
utm.edu/metaethi/) from the
original on January 23, 2024.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Delden, J. J. M. van (1998).
"Euthanasia (Physician-Assisted
Suicide)". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics
(2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-
0-12-373932-2.
DeNicola, Daniel R. (2018). Moral
Philosophy: A Contemporary
Introduction (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=5uCGDwAAQBAJ&pg
=PA66) . Broadview Press.
ISBN 978-1-4604-0660-1.
Dittmer, Joel. "Ethics, Applied" (http
s://iep.utm.edu/applied-ethics/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20230601064729/https://iep.
utm.edu/applied-ethics/) from the
original on June 1, 2023. Retrieved
December 23, 2023.
Doniger, Wendy (2010). The Hindus:
An Alternative History (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=nNsXZkdH
vXUC&pg=PA103) . Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
959334-7.
Doris, John; Stich, Stephen; Phillips,
Jonathan; Walmsley, Lachlan
(2020). "Moral Psychology:
Empirical Approaches" (https://plat
o.stanford.edu/entries/moral-psych
-emp/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20191107224335/https://plat
o.stanford.edu/entries/moral-psych
-emp/) from the original on
November 7, 2019. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Dorsey, Dale (2020).
"Consequences" (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=d0D8DwAAQBA
J&pg=PA95) . In Portmore, Douglas
W. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
Consequentialism. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-090534-7.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Downie, R. S. (2005). "Ethics and
Morality". In Honderich, Ted (ed.).
The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy (https://philpapers.org/r
ec/HONTOC-2) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20210129082636/https://phil
papers.org/rec/HONTOC-2) from
the original on January 29, 2021.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Dreier, James (2007). "Moral
Relativism and Moral Nihilism". In
Copp, David (ed.). The Oxford
Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford
University Press.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325
911.003.0010 (https://doi.org/10.1
093%2Foxfordhb%2F97801953259
11.003.0010) . ISBN 978-0-19-
989207-5.
Dynes, Wayne R. (2016). "Creation
of Daoism (6th Century BC)" (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=px
jOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA60) . In Curta,
Florin; Holt, Andrew (eds.). Great
Events in Religion: An Encyclopedia
of Pivotal Events in Religious
History. Bloomsbury Publishing
USA. ISBN 978-1-61069-566-4.
Retrieved April 4, 2024.
Eaglestone, Robert (2004).
"Postmodernism and Ethics
Against the Metaphysics of
Comprehension" (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=dfpJqgYC7x8C&
pg=PA182) . In Connor, Steven
(ed.). The Cambridge Companion to
Postmodernism. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
64840-0.
Edmundson, William A. (2004). An
Introduction to Rights (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=QYh_vN7C
qMEC&pg=PA158) . Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
00870-9. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Elrod, Edwin M.; Smith, Martha M.
(2005). "Information Ethics". In
Mitcham, Carl (ed.). Encyclopedia of
Science, Technology and Ethics (htt
ps://www.encyclopedia.com/scienc
e/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcri
pts-and-maps/information-ethics) .
Vol. 3. Thomson Gale. ISBN 978-0-
02-865834-6. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/2023122617321
0/https://www.encyclopedia.com/s
cience/encyclopedias-almanacs-tra
nscripts-and-maps/information-et
hics) from the original on
December 26, 2023. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Eysenck, Michael W. (2004).
Psychology: An International
Perspective (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=rU9MRvYIh5YC&pg=
PA586) . Taylor & Francis.
ISBN 978-1-84169-361-3. Retrieved
January 4, 2024.
Feibleman, James K. (2012) [1967].
"Rights and Duties" (https://link.spri
nger.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-
011-9321-4_10) . Moral Strategy: An
Introduction to the Ethics of
Confrontation. Springer
Netherlands. pp. 121–126.
doi:10.1007/978-94-011-9321-4_10
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-94
-011-9321-4_10) . ISBN 978-94-
011-8559-2.
Fernando, A. C. (2010). Business
Ethics and Corporate Governance (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=
_32bJs_nfNIC&pg=SA2-PA6) .
Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-
81-317-3462-9.
Fieser, James (2000). Moral
Philosophy Through the Ages (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=9J
l2x7G1G90C&pg=PA159) . Mayfield
Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-
7674-1298-8.
Finlayson, James Gordon; Rees,
Dafydd Huw (2023). "Jürgen
Habermas" (https://plato.stanford.e
du/entries/habermas/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2023
0708183215/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/habermas/) from the
original on July 8, 2023. Retrieved
December 31, 2023.
FitzPatrick, William J. (2011).
"Ethical Non-Naturalism and
Normative Properties" (https://link.
springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978
0230294899_2) . In Brady, Michael
(ed.). New Waves in Metaethics.
Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 7–35.
doi:10.1057/9780230294899_2 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1057%2F97802302
94899_2) . ISBN 978-0-230-29489-
9. Retrieved December 22, 2023.
Fives, Allyn (2016). "Working from
Both Ends: The Dual Role of
Philosophy in Research Ethics" (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=f
78YDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA171) . In
Fives, Allyn; Breen, Keith (eds.).
Philosophy and Political
Engagement: Reflection in the Public
Sphere. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-
44587-2.
Flynn, Eileen P. (2012). Ethical
Lessons of the Financial Crisis (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=pl
3bToUqdAIC&pg=PA167) .
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-34312-
4. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Fotion, N. (1998). "Military Ethics".
In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics
(2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-
0-12-373932-2.
Francione, Gary L. (2004). "Animals
- Property or Persons?" (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=ocbdJD2
oUW0C&pg=PA115) . In Sunstein,
Cass R.; Nussbaum, Martha C.
(eds.). Animal Rights: Current
Debates and New Directions. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
803473-5. Retrieved December 27,
2023.
Frey, R.G. (1998). "Bioethics".
Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (https://www.rep.routled
ge.com/articles/thematic/bioethic
s/v-1) . Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L008-
1 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F9780
415249126-L008-1) . ISBN 978-0-
415-25069-6.
Friend, Celeste. "Social Contract
Theory" (https://iep.utm.edu/soc-c
ont/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
Fitzpatrick, Simon (2017). "Animal
morality: What is the debate
about?". Biology & Philosophy. 32
(6): 1151–1183.
doi:10.1007/s10539-017-9599-6 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10539-0
17-9599-6) .
Frowe, Helen (2021). "The Ethics of
War" (https://www.rep.routledge.co
m/articles/thematic/the-ethics-of-
war/v-1) . Routledge Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/2023060818094
8/https://www.rep.routledge.com/a
rticles/thematic/the-ethics-of-war/v
-1) from the original on June 8,
2023. Retrieved December 25,
2023.
Funk, Michael (2021). "What Is
Robot Ethics? ... And Can It Be
Standardized?" (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=kK4SEAAAQBAJ
&pg=PA475) . In Nørskov, M.; Seibt,
J.; Quick, O. S. (eds.). Culturally
Sustainable Social Robotics:
Proceedings of Robophilosophy
2020. IOS Press. ISBN 978-1-64368-
155-9. Retrieved January 4, 2024.
Gay, William C. (2006). "A
Normative Framework for
Addressing Peace and Related
Global Issues" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=VKprw2w_IJQC&p
g=PA189) . In Boersema, David;
Brown, Katy Gray (eds.). Spiritual
and Political Dimensions of
Nonviolence and Peace. Rodopi.
ISBN 978-90-420-2061-0. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Gellman, Jerome I. (1994). The Fear,
the Trembling, and the Fire:
Kierkegaard and Hasidic Masters on
the Binding of Isaac (https://books.
google.com/books?id=LYOpcYXhC
kMC&pg=PA45) . University Press
of America. ISBN 978-0-8191-9365-
0.
Gillon, R. (1998). "Bioethics,
Overview". In Chadwick, Ruth (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics
(2 ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-
0-12-373932-2.
Gordon, John-Stewart. "Bioethics"
(https://iep.utm.edu/bioethics/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20231027011137/https://iep.
utm.edu/bioethics/) from the
original on October 27, 2023.
Retrieved December 23, 2023.
Gordon, John-Stewart. "Abortion" (h
ttps://iep.utm.edu/abortion/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved June 24, 2024.
Gowans, Chris (2021). "Moral
Relativism" (https://plato.stanford.e
du/entries/moral-relativism/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2024
0201103420/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/moral-relativism/)
from the original on February 1,
2024. Retrieved December 19,
2023.
Grayling, A. C. (2019). The History
of Philosophy (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=bDJwDwAAQBA
J) . Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-241-
98086-6. Retrieved May 24, 2023.
Grenz, Stanley J.; Guretzki, David;
Nordling, Cherith Fee (2010).
Pocket Dictionary of Theological
Terms (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=Iv-LCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1
8) . InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-
8308-6707-3. Retrieved January 4,
2024.
Gustafson, Andrew B. (2020).
"Normative Ethics" (https://link.spri
nger.com/referenceworkentry/10.1
007/978-3-319-23514-1_1222-1) .
Encyclopedia of Business and
Professional Ethics. Springer
International Publishing. pp. 1–5.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23514-
1_1222-1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%
2F978-3-319-23514-1_1222-1) .
ISBN 978-3-319-23514-1.
S2CID 243173997 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:243173
997) . Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Gustafsson, Juuso-Ville; Pietarinen,
Ahti-Veikko (2016). "8. Is Ethical
Normativity Similar to Logical
Normativity?" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=UDUPDQAAQBAJ
&pg=PA125) . In West, Donna E.;
Anderson, Myrdene (eds.).
Consensus on Peirce's Concept of
Habit: Before and Beyond
Consciousness. Springer. ISBN 978-
3-319-45920-2. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Haiming, Wang (2021). The
Principles of New Ethics. Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-138-33161-7.
Haines, William. "Consequentialism
and Utilitarianism" (https://iep.utm.
edu/consequentialism-utilitarianis
m/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20231224224334/h
ttps://iep.utm.edu/consequentialis
m-utilitarianism/) from the original
on December 24, 2023. Retrieved
December 28, 2023.
Hale, Benjamin (2017). "Duty &
Obligation: Rights, Rules, and
Respect for Nature" (https://books.
google.com/books?id=CQNLDgAA
QBAJ&pg=PA216) . In Gardiner,
Stephen Mark; Thompson, Allen
(eds.). The Oxford Handbook of
Environmental Ethics. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
994133-9. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Hall, Edward; Sabl, Andrew (2022).
Hall, Edward; Sabl, Andrew (eds.).
Political Ethics: A Handbook (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=4b
hiEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1) . Princeton
University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-
23131-0. Retrieved December 27,
2023.
Harrison, Ross (2005). "Meta-
ethics". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ht
tps://philpapers.org/rec/HONTOC-
2) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2021
0129082636/https://philpapers.or
g/rec/HONTOC-2) from the
original on January 29, 2021.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Heyd, David (2019).
"Supererogation" (https://plato.stan
ford.edu/entries/supererogation/) .
The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
Hill, Lisa; Blazejak, Eden (2021).
Stoicism and the Western Political
Tradition (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=UQE5EAAAQBAJ&pg
=PA4) . Springer Nature. ISBN 978-
981-16-2742-2.
Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (2015).
"Introduction to Value Theory". In
Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.).
The Oxford Handbook of Value
Theory (https://books.google.com/
books?id=uvzVBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA
1) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0. Retrieved
January 4, 2024.
Hoad, T. F. (1993). The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of English
Etymology. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-283098-2.
Hollenbach, David (2002). The
Common Good and Christian Ethics
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=QEKQxJZq-a8C&pg=PA3) .
Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-89451-7. Retrieved
January 10, 2024.
Holmes, Robert L. (2018).
Introduction to Applied Ethics.
Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-
3500-2980-4.
Hooker, Brad (2005).
"Consequentialism". In Honderich,
Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy (https://philpapers.org/r
ec/HONTOC-2) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20210129082636/https://phil
papers.org/rec/HONTOC-2) from
the original on January 29, 2021.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Hooker, Brad (2014). "Utilitarianism
and Fairness" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=z3zBAgAAQBAJ&
pg=PA281) . In Eggleston, Ben;
Miller, Dale E. (eds.). The Cambridge
Companion to Utilitarianism.
Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-1-139-86748-1. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Hooker, Brad (2023). "Rule
Consequentialism" (https://plato.st
anford.edu/entries/consequentialis
m-rule/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20240201
103315/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/consequentialism-rule/)
from the original on February 1,
2024. Retrieved December 29,
2023.
Hudson, W. Donald (1969). Is-ought
Question (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=m_-vCwAAQBAJ&pg=
PA11) . Springer. ISBN 978-1-349-
15336-7.
Hursthouse, Rosalind (1999). On
Virtue Ethics (https://books.google.
com/books?id=EbHmCwAAQBAJ&
pg=PA3) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-823818-8. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Hursthouse, Rosalind; Pettigrove,
Glen (2023). "Virtue Ethics" (https://
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-v
irtue/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20190514202814/https://plat
o.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtu
e/) from the original on May 14,
2019. Retrieved December 31,
2023.
Imafidon, E. (2015). The Ethics of
Subjectivity: Perspectives Since the
Dawn of Modernity (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=5_i_CQAAQB
AJ&pg=PT211) . Springer.
ISBN 978-1-137-47242-7. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Jackson, Elizabeth; Goldschmidt,
Tyron; Crummett, Dustin; Chan,
Rebecca (2021). Applied Ethics: An
Impartial Introduction (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=SNlGEAAA
QBAJ&pg=PA1) . Hackett
Publishing. ISBN 978-1-64792-014-
2.
Jankowiak, Tim. "Kant, Immanuel"
(https://iep.utm.edu/kantview/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20231219121801/https://iep.
utm.edu/kantview/) from the
original on December 19, 2023.
Retrieved December 30, 2023.
Johnson, Robert; Cureton, Adam
(2022). "Kant's Moral Philosophy"
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
kant-moral/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20240201
103437/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/kant-moral/) from the
original on February 1, 2024.
Retrieved December 30, 2023.
Junru, Li (2019). Governing China in
the New Era (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=jaOZEAAAQBAJ&pg=
PT87) . Foreign Languages Press.
ISBN 978-7-119-11413-2.
Kagan, Shelly (1998). Normative
Ethics. Westview Press. ISBN 978-
0-8133-0846-3.
Karenga, Maulana (2004). Maat, the
Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt: A Study
in Classical African Ethics (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=ams2O
PbmHMUC&pg=PA175) .
Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-
94753-4. Retrieved December 19,
2023.
Kendall, Sacha (2017). "13.
Postmodern Ethics for Practice" (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=
VyRIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA195) . In
Hugman, Richard; Carter, Jan
(eds.). Rethinking Values and Ethics
in Social Work. Bloomsbury.
ISBN 978-1-137-45503-1. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Kerstein, Samuel J. (2009).
"Deriving the Supreme Moral
Principle from Common Moral
Ideas" (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=Bqemab0aXx8C&pg=PA1
28) . In Hill, Thomas E. (ed.). The
Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics.
John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-
4443-0849-5.
Kivy, Peter (2011). Antithetical Arts:
On the Ancient Quarrel Between
Literature and Music (https://books.
google.com/books?id=-c7ThZc5Rv
0C&pg=PA238) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-161575-7.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Kraut, Richard (2022). "Aristotle's
Ethics" (https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/aristotle-ethics/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2022
1110125320/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/) from
the original on November 10, 2022.
Retrieved January 1, 2024.
Krellenstein, Marc (2017). "Moral
Nihilism and Its Implications" (http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/4463152
9) . The Journal of Mind and
Behavior. 38 (1): 75–90. ISSN 0271-
0137 (https://search.worldcat.org/i
ssn/0271-0137) . JSTOR 44631529
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/4463
1529) . Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20231220094748/http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/4463152
9) from the original on December
20, 2023. Retrieved December 22,
2023.
Kriegel, Uri (1999). "Normativity and
Rationality: Bernard Williams on
Reasons for Action". Iyyun: The
Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly /
292–281 :48 .‫ רבעון פילוסופי‬:‫עיון‬.
ISSN 0021-3306 (https://search.wo
rldcat.org/issn/0021-3306) .
JSTOR 23352588 (https://www.jsto
r.org/stable/23352588) .
Kumm, Mattias; Walen, Alec D.
(2014). "Human Dignity and
Proportionality: Deontic Pluralism
in Balancing" (https://books.google.
com/books?id=DXs9AwAAQBAJ&p
g=PA81) . In Huscroft, Grant; Miller,
Bradley W.; Webber, Grégoire (eds.).
Proportionality and the Rule of Law:
Rights, Justification, Reasoning.
Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-1-139-95287-3. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Kupperman, Joel J. (2005).
"Axiological Ethics". In Honderich,
Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy (https://philpapers.org/r
ec/HONTOC-2) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20210129082636/https://phil
papers.org/rec/HONTOC-2) from
the original on January 29, 2021.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Kvalnes, Øyvind (2023).
"Communication Ethics" (https://lin
k.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/9
78-3-031-28971-2_12) .
Communication Climate at Work:
Fostering Friendly Friction in
Organisations. Springer
International Publishing. pp. 101–
110. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-28971-
2_12 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F9
78-3-031-28971-2_12) . ISBN 978-
3-031-28971-2. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
LaFollette, Hugh (2007). "Pragmatic
Ethics". In LaFollette, Hugh (ed.).
The Blackwell Guide to Ethical
Theory (https://www.hughlafollette.
com/papers/pragmati.htm) .
Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20119-9.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20230516141134/https://ww
w.hughlafollette.com/papers/prag
mati.htm) from the original on May
16, 2023. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Latus, Andrew. "Moral Luck" (http
s://iep.utm.edu/moralluc/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved May 15, 2024.
Lazar, Seth (2020). "War" (https://pl
ato.stanford.edu/entries/war/) .
The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2023
0809072207/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/war/) from the original
on August 9, 2023. Retrieved
December 25, 2023.
Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna de; Singer,
Peter (2017). "Parfit on Objectivity
and 'The Profoundest Problem of
Ethics' ". In Singer, Peter (ed.). Does
Anything Really Matter?: Essays on
Parfit on Objectivity (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=8jTjDQAAQB
AJ) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-108439-3. Retrieved
December 26, 2023.
Legg, Catherine; Hookway,
Christopher (2021). "Pragmatism"
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
pragmatism/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20201008
130434/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/pragmatism/) from the
original on October 8, 2020.
Retrieved December 31, 2023.
Leiter, Brian (2021). "Nietzsche's
Moral and Political Philosophy" (htt
ps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/niet
zsche-moral-political/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved
May 15, 2024.
Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert
(1889). An Intermediate Greek-
English Lexicon (https://archive.or
g/details/intermediategree00lidd/p
age/n353/mode/2up?view=theate
r) . Harper & Brothers.
OCLC 1146511662 (https://search.
worldcat.org/oclc/1146511662) .
Linn, Ruth (1994). "Moral
Disobedience During the Lebanon
War: What Can the Cognitive-
Developmental Approach Learn
from the Experience of Israeli
Soldiers?" (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=vayVldaXP-0C&pg=P
A330) . In Puka, Bill (ed.). Moral
Development: New Research in
Moral Development. Taylor &
Francis. ISBN 978-0-8153-1552-0.
Retrieved January 4, 2024.
Lipson, Carol S.; Binkley, Roberta A.
(2012). Rhetoric Before and Beyond
the Greeks (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=uVt7c3UX-zMC&pg=P
A80) . State University of New York
Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-8503-3.
Lisska, Anthony J. (2015). "Natural
Law" (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=Cgg1DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA6
35) . In Marenbon, John (ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Medieval
Philosophy. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-024697-6.
Littlejohn, Ronnie. "Chinese
Philosophy: Overview of History" (ht
tps://iep.utm.edu/chinese-philosop
hy-overview-of-history/) . Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20230601185554/https://iep.
utm.edu/chinese-philosophy-overvi
ew-of-history/) from the original on
June 1, 2023. Retrieved June 12,
2023.
Lloyd, Andrew; Hansen, John
(2003). "Philosophical Foundations
of Professional Ethics" (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=agwMiPq
5R1QC&pg=PA21) . In O'Donohue,
William; Ferguson, Kyle E. (eds.).
Handbook of Professional Ethics for
Psychologists: Issues, Questions,
and Controversies. Sage. ISBN 978-
0-7619-1189-0. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
Lowe, E. J. (2005). "ontology". The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ht
tps://www.oxfordreference.com/dis
play/10.1093/acref/978019926479
7.001.0001/acref-9780199264797-
e-1806) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Lutz, Matthew (2023). "Moral
Naturalism" (https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/naturalism-moral/) .
The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2019
1002234858/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/naturalism-moral/)
from the original on October 2,
2019. Retrieved December 20,
2023.
Matsuba, M. Kyle; Murzyn, Theresa;
Hart, Daniel (2011). "A Model of
Moral Identity". Advances in Child
Development and Behavior. 40:
181–207. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-
386491-8.00005-0 (https://doi.org/
10.1016%2Fb978-0-12-386491-8.00
005-0) . ISBN 978-0-12-386491-8.
ISSN 0065-2407 (https://search.wo
rldcat.org/issn/0065-2407) .
PMID 21887962 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/21887962) .
Mattila, Janne (2022). The
Eudaimonist Ethics of al-Fārābī and
Avicenna (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=5rptEAAAQBAJ&pg=P
A2) . Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-50691-6.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Maxwell, Bruce (2023).
"Educational Ethics" (https://link.sp
ringer.com/referenceworkentry/10.
1007/978-3-030-22767-8_1323) . In
Poff, Deborah C.; Michalos, Alex C.
(eds.). Encyclopedia of Business
and Professional Ethics. Springer
International Publishing. pp. 609–
614. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22767-
8_1323 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2
F978-3-030-22767-8_1323) .
ISBN 978-3-030-22767-8. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
McDonald, Fritz J. (2017). "4.
Beyond Objectivism and
Subjectivism" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=zCAxDwAAQBAJ&
pg=PT95) . In Makowski, Piotr
(ed.). Praxiology and the Reasons
for Action. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-
351-49716-9. Retrieved
December 26, 2023.
McEwan, Tom (2001). Managing
Values and Beliefs in Organisations
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=7ebzqK53ay8C&pg=PA87) .
Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-273-
64340-1. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
McNamara, Paul; Van De Putte,
Frederik (2022). "Deontic Logic" (htt
ps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi
c-deontic/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20240201
103930/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/logic-deontic/) from the
original on February 1, 2024.
Retrieved January 7, 2024.
McNaughton, David; Rawling, Piers
(1998). "Consequentialism".
Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (https://www.rep.routled
ge.com/articles/thematic/consequ
entialism/v-1) . Routledge.
ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2024
0102135840/https://www.rep.routl
edge.com/articles/thematic/conse
quentialism/v-1) from the original
on January 2, 2024. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Medvecky, Fabien; Leach, Joan
(2019). An Ethics of Science
Communication (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=NpO7DwAAQBA
J&pg=PA35) . Springer Nature.
ISBN 978-3-030-32116-1. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Mendus, Susan (2005). "The
Marriage of True Minds" (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=wYWGIp
a7Qr4C&pg=PA141) . In Morales,
Maria H. (ed.). Mill's The Subjection
of Women. Rowman & Littlefield.
ISBN 978-0-7425-3518-3. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Mentan, Tatah (2022).
Understanding Contemporary
Journalism: A Handbook of
Principles and Practice (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=OwbOEA
AAQBAJ&pg=PA280) . African
Books Collective. ISBN 978-9956-
552-91-7. Retrieved December 27,
2023.
Mesoudi, Alex; Danielson, Peter
(2008). "Ethics, Evolution and
Culture". Theory in Biosciences. 127
(3): 229–240. doi:10.1007/s12064-
008-0027-y (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs12064-008-0027-y) .
ISSN 1611-7530 (https://search.wo
rldcat.org/issn/1611-7530) .
PMID 18357481 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/18357481) .
S2CID 18643499 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:1864349
9) .
Metselaar, Suzanne; Widdershoven,
Guy (2016). "Discourse Ethics" (http
s://link.springer.com/referencework
entry/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0
_145) . Encyclopedia of Global
Bioethics. Springer International
Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
09483-0_145 (https://doi.org/10.10
07%2F978-3-319-09483-0_145) .
ISBN 978-3-319-09483-0. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Meyer, Kirsten (2023). "Moral
Education Through the Fostering of
Reasoning Skills" (https://doi.org/1
0.1007%2Fs10677-023-10367-3) .
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
27: 41–55. doi:10.1007/s10677-
023-10367-3 (https://doi.org/10.10
07%2Fs10677-023-10367-3) .
ISSN 1572-8447 (https://search.wo
rldcat.org/issn/1572-8447) .
Meynell, Letitia; Paron, Clarisse
(2023). Applied Ethics Primer (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=Vr
TFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11) .
Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-
77048-899-1. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Milevski, Voin (February 17, 2017).
"Weakness of will and motivational
internalism" (https://philarchive.or
g/rec/MILWOW-2) . Philosophical
Psychology. 30 (1–2): 44–57.
doi:10.1080/09515089.2016.12553
17 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F095
15089.2016.1255317) . ISSN 1465-
394X (https://search.worldcat.org/i
ssn/1465-394X) .
Miller, Patrick D. (2004). "Divine
Command and Beyond: The Ethics
of the Commandments" (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=87hQ2A
jcttEC&pg=PA13) . In Brown,
William P. (ed.). The Ten
Commandments: The Reciprocity of
Faithfulness. Westminster John
Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22323-
6. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Miller, Christian B. (2023).
"Overview of Contemporary
Metaethics and Normative Ethical
Theory". In Miller, Christian B. (ed.).
The Bloomsbury Handbook of Ethics
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=iarPEAAAQBAJ) . Bloomsbury.
ISBN 978-1-350-21790-4. Retrieved
December 22, 2023.
Mitcham, Carl (2022). Thinking
Through Technology: The Path
Between Engineering and
Philosophy (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=0uF-EAAAQBAJ&pg=
PA101) . University of Chicago
Press. ISBN 978-0-226-82539-7.
Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Monsó, Susana; Benz-Schwarzburg,
Judith; Bremhorst, Annika (2018).
"Animal Morality: What It Means
and Why It Matters" (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
6404642) . The Journal of Ethics.
22 (3–4): 283–310.
doi:10.1007/s10892-018-9275-3 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10892-0
18-9275-3) . PMC 6404642 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article
s/PMC6404642) . PMID 30930677
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3
0930677) .
Moore, Andrew (2019). "Hedonism"
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
hedonism/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20180918
065934/https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/hedonism/) from the
original on September 18, 2018.
Retrieved December 31, 2023.
Moreland, J. P.; Craig, William Lane
(2017). Philosophical Foundations
for a Christian Worldview (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=deDeDw
AAQBAJ&pg=PA417) . InterVarsity
Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-8917-4.
Retrieved December 22, 2023.
Mulvaney, Robert J. (2009).
Classical Philosophical Questions
(13 ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-
13-600652-7.
Murphy, Mark (2019). "Theological
Voluntarism" (https://plato.stanfor
d.edu/entries/voluntarism-theologi
cal/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2019
0803214619/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/voluntarism-theologic
al/) from the original on August 3,
2019. Retrieved December 31,
2023.
Murphy, Mark (2019a). "The Natural
Law Tradition in Ethics" (https://plat
o.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-
ethics/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Retrieved May 16, 2024.
Murthy, K. V. Bhanu (2009). Politics,
Ethics and Social Responsibility of
Business (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=tzhEBAAAQBAJ&pg=
PA74) . Pearson Education India.
ISBN 978-93-325-0649-7.
Myers, Jeff; Noebel, David A.
(2015). Understanding the Times: A
Survey of Competing Worldviews (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=
hzeACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA241) .
David C. Cook. ISBN 978-0-7814-
1378-7. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Nadkarni, M. V. (2011). Ethics for
our Times: Essays in Gandhian
Perspective: Second Edition (https://
books.google.com/books?id=aoM8
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT20) . Oxford
University Press India. ISBN 978-0-
19-908935-2.
Athanassoulis, Nafsika. "Virtue
Ethics" (https://iep.utm.edu/virtu
e/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20230427063347/h
ttps://iep.utm.edu/virtue/) from
the original on April 27, 2023.
Retrieved December 31, 2023.
Nagel, Thomas (2006). "Ethics". In
Borchert, Donald (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://
www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy
-and-religion/philosophy/philosoph
y-terms-and-concepts/ethics)
(2 ed.). Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-
865790-5. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20180824071808/ht
tps://www.encyclopedia.com/philo
sophy-and-religion/philosophy/phil
osophy-terms-and-concepts/ethic
s) from the original on August 24,
2018. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
Nelkin, Dana K. (2023). "Moral
Luck" (https://plato.stanford.edu/e
ntries/moral-luck/) . The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. Retrieved
May 15, 2024.
Norlock, Kathryn (2019). "Feminist
Ethics" (https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/feminism-ethics/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2018
0911065001/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/feminism-ethics/)
from the original on September 11,
2018. Retrieved December 18,
2023.
Norman, Richard (2005). "Moral
Philosophy, History of". In
Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford
Companion to Philosophy (https://p
hilpapers.org/rec/HONTOC-2) .
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-
0-19-926479-7. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/202101290826
36/https://philpapers.org/rec/HON
TOC-2) from the original on
January 29, 2021. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Ntuli, P. Pitika (2002). "Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and the
African Renaissance" (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=h9HDYNh
YqfAC&pg=PA59) . In Hoppers,
Catherine Alum Odora (ed.).
Indigenous Knowledge and the
Integration of Knowledge Systems:
Towards a Philosophy of
Articulation. New Africa Books.
ISBN 978-1-919876-58-0.
O'Neill, Onora. "Kantian Ethics" (http
s://www.rep.routledge.com/article
s/thematic/kantian-ethics/v-1) .
Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20231230180032/h
ttps://www.rep.routledge.com/artic
les/thematic/kantian-ethics/v-1)
from the original on December 30,
2023. Retrieved December 30,
2023.
O'Neill, Onora (2013). "Duty and
Obligation" (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=KfeOAQAAQBAJ&pg
=PA423) . In Becker, Lawrence C.;
Becker, Charlotte B. (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Ethics. Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-135-35096-3. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
OED Staff (2002). "Morality, n." (http
s://www.oed.com/dictionary/morali
ty_n?tl=true) Oxford English
Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Retrieved May 15, 2024.
Ortiz, Melba Vélez (2020). "Preface"
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=he7QDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT7) .
Maatian Ethics in a Communication
Context. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-
000-04831-5. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Pappu, S. S. Rama Rao (2013).
"Indian Philosophy of Law". The
Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=sn-qD-gCX18C) . Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-135-58277-7. Retrieved
June 10, 2023.
Parker, Christine; Evans, Adrian
(2007). Inside Lawyers' Ethics (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=-3
dVoptUyrwC&pg=PA22) .
Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-1-139-46128-3. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Patching, Roger; Hirst, Martin
(2013). Journalism Ethics:
Arguments and Cases for the
Twenty-first Century (https://books.
google.com/books?id=FFclAgAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA69) . Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-317-96374-5. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Paul, Richard W.; Elder, Linda
(2005). The Miniature Guide to
Understanding the Foundations of
Ethical Reasoning: Based on "Critical
Thinking Concepts & Principles"
(3. ed.). Foundation for Critical
Thinking. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.
Peppard, Christiana Z. (2005).
"Introduction" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=qFBgL8b4_JgC&p
g=PR18) . In Galston, A. W.;
Peppard, Christiana Z. (eds.).
Expanding Horizons in Bioethics.
Springer Science & Business
Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-3061-1.
Pera, Silvia Angelina; Tonder,
Susara Van (2005). Ethics in Health
Care (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=S11Eg3KjcOAC&pg=PA7) .
Juta and Company Ltd. ISBN 978-0-
7021-6679-2. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Perrett, Roy W. (2016). An
Introduction to Indian Philosophy (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=
q7wwCwAAQBAJ) . Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
85356-9. Retrieved June 9, 2023.
Petersen, Thomas Søbirk; Ryberg,
Jesper (2022). "Applied Ethics" (htt
ps://www.oxfordbibliographies.co
m/display/document/obo-9780195
396577/obo-9780195396577-000
6.xml) . Oxford Bibliographies.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20231228154631/https://ww
w.oxfordbibliographies.com/displa
y/document/obo-9780195396577/
obo-9780195396577-0006.xml)
from the original on December 28,
2023. Retrieved December 23,
2023.
Peterson, Anna L. (2020). "4.
Pragmatism and Ethics: The Path
of Inquiry". Works Righteousness:
Material Practice in Ethical Theory (h
ttps://academic.oup.com/book/40
526/chapter-abstract/347844589?r
edirectedFrom=fulltext) . Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
753225-6. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20231231125224/ht
tps://academic.oup.com/book/405
26/chapter-abstract/347844589?re
directedFrom=fulltext) from the
original on December 31, 2023.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Pick, Thomas (2004). "Moral
Obligation". Royal Institute of
Philosophy Supplement. 54: 159–
185.
doi:10.1017/S1358246100008493
(https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS1358
246100008493) . ISSN 1755-3555
(https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1
755-3555) . S2CID 1105915 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpus
ID:1105915) .
Porter, Burton (2010). What the
Tortoise Taught Us: The Story of
Philosophy (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=KF6MauIHGKgC&pg
=PA73) . Rowman & Littlefield.
ISBN 978-1-4422-0553-6. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Post, Stephen G. (2011). "Sorokin
and the Therapeutic of Love: A
Critical Assessment" (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=PnP6yF_3
gfYC&pg=PA118) . In Aviñó, Elvira
del Pozo (ed.). Integralism, Altruism
and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor
of Pitirim A. Sorokin. Universitat de
València. ISBN 978-84-370-8362-9.
Retrieved January 4, 2024.
Pritchard, Duncan (2015). What is
this Thing Called Philosophy? (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=Eo
H_CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA5) .
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-03746-
8.
Proscurcin Junior, Pedro (2014).
Der Begriff ēthos bei Homer: Beitrag
zu einer philosophischen
Interpretation. Universitätsverlag
Winter. ISBN 978-3-8253-6339-0.
OCLC 891609972 (https://search.w
orldcat.org/oclc/891609972) .
Puka, William. "Moral Development"
(https://iep.utm.edu/moraldev/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20240103175822/https://iep.
utm.edu/moraldev/) from the
original on January 3, 2024.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Ranganathan, Shyam. "Ramanuja"
(https://iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20200212154759/https://ww
w.iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/) from
the original on February 12, 2020.
Retrieved December 18, 2023.
Reilly, R. (1977). "Socrates' Moral
Paradox". The Southwestern Journal
of Philosophy. 8 (1): 101–107.
doi:10.5840/swjphil19778110 (http
s://doi.org/10.5840%2Fswjphil1977
8110) . ISSN 0038-481X (https://se
arch.worldcat.org/issn/0038-481
X) .
Rendtorff, J. D. (1998). "Business
Ethics, Overview". In Chadwick,
Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied
Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press.
ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Ribino, Patrizia; Lodato, Carmelo
(2019). "A Norm Compliance
Approach for Open and Goal-
Directed Intelligent Systems" (http
s://doi.org/10.1155%2F2019%2F78
95875) . Complexity. 2019: 1–20.
doi:10.1155/2019/7895875 (http
s://doi.org/10.1155%2F2019%2F78
95875) . ISSN 1099-0526 (https://s
earch.worldcat.org/issn/1099-052
6) .
Rice, Stanley A. (2009).
Encyclopedia of Evolution (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=YRcAV
vmE6eMC&pg=PA153) . Infobase
Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-1005-
9. Retrieved January 4, 2024.
Ridge, Michael (2019). "Moral Non-
Naturalism" (https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/moral-non-naturalis
m/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved
December 20, 2023.
Rini, Regina A. "Morality and
Cognitive Science" (https://iep.utm.
edu/m-cog-sc/) . Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20230907173628/https://iep.
utm.edu/m-cog-sc/) from the
original on September 7, 2023.
Retrieved September 7, 2023.
Robson, Gregory J.; Tsou, Jonathan
Y. (2023). "Introduction" (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=3gumEA
AAQBAJ&pg=PT16) . Technology
Ethics: A Philosophical Introduction
and Readings. Taylor & Francis.
ISBN 978-1-000-83023-1. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Rosati, Connie S. (2016). "Moral
Motivation" (https://plato.stanford.e
du/entries/moral-motivation/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2023
0716015931/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/moral-motivation/)
from the original on July 16, 2023.
Retrieved December 21, 2023.
Roser, Dominic; Seidel, Christian
(2016). Climate Justice: An
Introduction (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=gislDwAAQBAJ&pg=
PR1) . Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-
317-20953-9.
Rudy-Hiller, Fernando (2022). "27.
The Moral Psychology of Moral
Responsibility" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=j81kEAAAQBAJ&p
g=PA509) . In Vargas, Manuel;
Doris, John (eds.). The Oxford
Handbook of Moral Psychology.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-
0-19-887171-2. Retrieved
January 4, 2024.
Ryberg, Jesper (2010). Applied
Ethics: Oxford Bibliographies Online
Research Guide (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=ZsCRosM367gC&
pg=PA3) . Oxford University Press,
USA. ISBN 978-0-19-980865-6.
Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Sajoo, Amyn (2008). Muslim Ethics:
Emerging Vistas (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=C7aKDwAAQBA
J&pg=PA60) . Bloomsbury.
ISBN 978-0-85771-495-4. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Sander-Staudt, Maureen. "Care
Ethics" (https://iep.utm.edu/care-e
thics/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20220604150028/h
ttps://iep.utm.edu/care-ethics/)
from the original on June 4, 2022.
Retrieved December 31, 2023.
Sandler, R. (1998). "Environmental
Ethics, Overview". In Chadwick,
Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia of Applied
Ethics (2 ed.). Academic Press.
ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Satyanarayana, Y. V. (2009). Ethics:
Theory and Practice (https://books.
google.com/books?id=gjiBTNR1g0
kC&pg=PT76) . Pearson Education
India. ISBN 978-81-317-9287-2.
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey (1988).
"Introduction: The Many Moral
Realisms" (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=-msmrkE-67IC&pg=P
A10) . In Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey
(ed.). Essays on Moral Realism.
Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-
0-8014-9541-0.
Sayre-McCord, Geoff (2023).
"Metaethics" (https://plato.stanfor
d.edu/entries/metaethics/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2023
0712062506/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/metaethics/) from the
original on July 12, 2023. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Sayre-McCord, Geoff (2023a).
"Moral Realism" (https://plato.stanf
ord.edu/entries/moral-realism/) .
The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2020
0423021516/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/moral-realism/) from
the original on April 23, 2020.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Schroeder, Doris. "Evolutionary
Ethics" (https://iep.utm.edu/evol-et
h/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20230928042720/h
ttps://iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/) from
the original on September 28, 2023.
Retrieved January 4, 2024.
Schroeder, Mark (2021). "Value
Theory" (https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/value-theory/) . The
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2024
0201103939/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/value-theory/) from
the original on February 1, 2024.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Shaver, Robert (2023). "Egoism" (htt
ps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eg
oism/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20220324001213/https://plat
o.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/)
from the original on March 24,
2022. Retrieved December 31,
2023.
Simpson, David L. "Ross, William
David" (https://iep.utm.edu/ross-w
d/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20190620123622/h
ttps://www.iep.utm.edu/ross-wd/)
from the original on June 20, 2019.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Sims, Ronald R. (2017). A
Contemporary Look at Business
Ethics (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=J6csDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA
6) . IAP. ISBN 978-1-68123-956-9.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Sinclair, Rebekah (2022). "Righting
Names: The Importance of Native
American Philosophies of Naming
for Environmental Justice" (https://
books.google.com/books?id=yhwr
EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA96) . In Dhillon,
Jaskiran (ed.). Indigenous
Resurgence: Decolonialization and
Movements for Environmental
Justice. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-
1-80073-247-6.
Singer, Peter (2016). Famine,
Affluence, and Morality. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
021920-8.
Sinha, Jai B. P. (2014). Psycho-
Social Analysis of the Indian
Mindset (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=Vp_cBAAAQBAJ&pg=
PA81) . Springer India. ISBN 978-
81-322-1804-3.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2019).
"Moral Skepticism" (https://plato.st
anford.edu/entries/skepticism-mo
ral/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2019
0806135129/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/skepticism-moral/)
from the original on August 6, 2019.
Retrieved December 21, 2023.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2023).
"Consequentialism" (https://plato.st
anford.edu/entries/consequentiali
sm/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2023
0618171402/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/consequentialism/)
from the original on June 18, 2023.
Retrieved December 28, 2023.
Skelton, Anthony (2022). "William
David Ross" (https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/william-david-ross/) .
The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved
July 28, 2024.
Skirbekk, Gunnar; Gilje, Nils (2017).
A History of Western Thought: From
Ancient Greece to the Twentieth
Century (https://books.google.com/
books?id=_I00e3SQAwMC&pg=PA
81) . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-
22604-6.
Slingerland, Edward (2007).
Effortless Action: Wu-wei As
Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual
Ideal in Early China (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=gSReaja3V3I
C&pg=PA77) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-987457-6.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Slote, Michael (2005).
"Utilitarianism". In Honderich, Ted
(ed.). The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy (https://philpapers.org/r
ec/HONTOC-2) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20210129082636/https://phil
papers.org/rec/HONTOC-2) from
the original on January 29, 2021.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Slote, Michael (2005a). "Virtues". In
Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford
Companion to Philosophy (https://p
hilpapers.org/rec/HONTOC-2) .
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-
0-19-926479-7. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/202101290826
36/https://philpapers.org/rec/HON
TOC-2) from the original on
January 29, 2021. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Smith, Kimberly K. (2018). Exploring
Environmental Ethics: An
Introduction (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=LFBVDwAAQBAJ&pg
=PA36) . Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-
77395-7. Retrieved December 27,
2023.
Smith, Barry; Thomas, Alan.
"Axiology" (https://www.rep.routled
ge.com/articles/thematic/axiolog
y/v-1) . Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20231130132059/h
ttps://www.rep.routledge.com/artic
les/thematic/axiology/v-1) from
the original on November 30, 2023.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Sorabji, Richard; Rodin, David
(2007). "Introduction". In Sorabji,
Richard; Rodin, David (eds.). The
Ethics of War: Shared Problems in
Different Traditions (Repr ed.).
Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-
7546-5448-3.
Stecker, Robert (2010). "Ethics and
Aesthetics". In Skorupski, John
(ed.). The Routledge Companion to
Ethics (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=wYHFBQAAQBAJ) .
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-96421-
3. Retrieved January 4, 2024.
Stephens, William O. "Stoic Ethics"
(https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/) .
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved June 15, 2024.
Stoljar, Samuel (1984). "Rights and
Duties" (https://link.springer.com/c
hapter/10.1007/978-1-349-17607-
6_4) . An Analysis of Rights.
Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 36–50.
doi:10.1007/978-1-349-17607-6_4
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-
349-17607-6_4) . ISBN 978-1-349-
17607-6. Retrieved January 7,
2024.
Suikkanen, Jussi (2020).
Contractualism (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=343mDwAAQBAJ
&pg=PA24) . Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-1-108-58711-2.
Sullivan, Barbara (2001). " 'It's All in
the Contract': Rethinking Feminist
Critiques of Contract" (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=1vkgWX7G
Rr0C&pg=PA118) . In Carney, Terry;
Ramia, Gaby; Yeatman, Anna (eds.).
Contractualism and Citizenship.
Federation Press. ISBN 978-1-
86287-366-7. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Sulmasy, Daniel P.; Sugarman,
Jeremy (2010). "The Many Methods
of Medical Ethics (Or, Thirteen
Ways of Looking at a Blackbird)" (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=
QPvoTjDn0B4C&pg=PA11) . In
Sugarman, Jeremy; Sulmasy, Daniel
P. (eds.). Methods in Medical Ethics
(2 ed.). Georgetown University
Press. ISBN 978-1-58901-623-1.
Retrieved January 3, 2024.
Sydnor, Jon Paul (March 29, 2012).
Ramanuja and Schleiermacher:
Toward a Constructive Comparative
Theology (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=aIviDwAAQBAJ&pg=P
A20) . James Clarke & Company
Limited. ISBN 978-0-227-90035-2.
Retrieved September 7, 2023.
Talbert, Matthew (2019). "Moral
Responsibility" (https://plato.stanfo
rd.edu/entries/moral-responsibilit
y/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2024
0201103819/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/moral-responsibility/)
from the original on February 1,
2024. Retrieved January 7, 2024.
ten Have, Henk; Patrão Neves,
Maria do Céu (2021). "Information
Ethics" (https://link.springer.com/c
hapter/10.1007/978-3-030-54161-
3_310) . Dictionary of Global
Bioethics. Springer International
Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-
54161-3_310 (https://doi.org/10.10
07%2F978-3-030-54161-3_310) .
ISBN 978-3-030-54161-3.
S2CID 241302927 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:241302
927) . Retrieved December 27,
2023.
Thapar, Romila (1978). Ancient
Indian Social History: Some
Interpretations (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=fK3VTUrWsD0C&
pg=PA48) . Orient Blackswan.
ISBN 978-81-250-0808-8. Retrieved
December 19, 2023.
Thoma, Stephen J. (2015). "13 A
Neo-Kohlbergian Tale of Two
Sensitivities" (https://books.google.
com/books?id=SqBhCQAAQBAJ&p
g=PA230) . In Mower, Deborah;
Robison, Wade L.; Vandenberg,
Phyllis (eds.). Developing Moral
Sensitivity. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-
317-49841-4. Retrieved January 4,
2024.
Thomas, Alan (2022). "Normative
Ethics" (https://www.oxfordbibliogr
aphies.com/display/document/obo
-9780195396577/obo-9780195396
577-0082.xml) . Oxford
Bibliographies. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/2024020110393
9/https://www.oxfordbibliographie
s.com/display/document/obo-9780
195396577/obo-9780195396577-0
082.xml) from the original on
February 1, 2024. Retrieved
December 28, 2023.
Tzafestas, Spyros G. (2015).
Roboethics: A Navigating Overview
(https://books.google.com/books?i
d=EdpECgAAQBAJ&pg=PA2) .
Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-21714-7.
Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Verhoeven, F. R. J. (2013). Islam: Its
Origin and Spread in Words, Maps
and Pictures (https://books.google.
com/books?id=RYpTAQAAQBAJ&p
g=PA27) . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-
134-54091-4. Retrieved January 3,
2024.
Vogt, Katja Maria (2017). Desiring
the Good: Ancient Proposals and
Contemporary Theory (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=DXAuDwA
AQBAJ&pg=PA42) . Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
069248-3. Retrieved January 10,
2024.
Wenar, Leif (2021). "John Rawls" (ht
tps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ra
wls/) . The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2018
0923083531/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/rawls/) from the
original on September 23, 2018.
Retrieved December 26, 2023.
Werner, Preston (2020). "Getting a
Moral Thing into a Thought:
Metasemantics for Non-
Naturalists" (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=rWjxDwAAQBAJ&pg
=PA148) . In Shafer-Landau, Russ
(ed.). Oxford Studies in Metaethics.
Vol. 15. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-260331-9. Retrieved
December 22, 2023.
Westacott, Emrys. "Moral
Relativism" (https://iep.utm.edu/mo
ral-re/) . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20231216115535/h
ttps://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/) from
the original on December 16, 2023.
Retrieved December 19, 2023.
Williams, Garrath. "Praise and
Blame" (https://iep.utm.edu/blame-
and-praise/) . Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/2023113006513
1/https://iep.utm.edu/blame-and-p
raise/) from the original on
November 30, 2023. Retrieved
January 7, 2024.
Wilson, Scott D. "Animals and
Ethics" (https://iep.utm.edu/animal
s-and-ethics/) . Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20230715062727/https://iep.
utm.edu/animals-and-ethics/)
from the original on July 15, 2023.
Retrieved December 24, 2023.
Winkler, E. R. (1998). "Applied
Ethics, Overview" (https://www.scie
ncedirect.com/science/article/abs/
pii/B9780123739322000168) . In
Chadwick, Ruth (ed.). Encyclopedia
of Applied Ethics (2 ed.). Academic
Press. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20231223101553/https://ww
w.sciencedirect.com/science/articl
e/abs/pii/B978012373932200016
8) from the original on December
23, 2023. Retrieved December 27,
2023.
Wolfendale, Jessica (2007).
"Professional Ethics and the
Military" (https://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1057/9780230592803
_4) . Torture and the Military
Profession. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
pp. 47–76.
doi:10.1057/9780230592803_4 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1057%2F97802305
92803_4) . ISBN 978-0-230-59280-
3. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
Woollard, Fiona; Howard-Snyder,
Frances (2022). "Doing Vs. Allowing
Harm" (https://plato.stanford.edu/e
ntries/doing-allowing/#TrolProb) .
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2023
1005193642/https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/doing-allowing/#TrolP
rob) from the original on October
5, 2023. Retrieved September 7,
2023.
Wu, Jiyun; Wokutch, Richard E.
(2008). "Confucianism" (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=5m9yq0E
u-vsC&pg=PT474) . In Kolb, Robert
W. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Business
Ethics and Society. Sage. ISBN 978-
1-4129-1652-3. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Yount, Lisa (2007). Animal Rights (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?id
=R4jQ_upQZroC&pg=PA26) .
Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-
4381-3063-7. Retrieved
December 27, 2023.
Zhang, Feng (2023). "The
Conception of Morality in Moral
Realism" (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=2ka8EAAAQBAJ&pg=
PA96) . In Xuetong, Yan; Yuanyuan,
Fang (eds.). The Essence of
Interstate Leadership: Debating
Moral Realism. Policy Press.
ISBN 978-1-5292-3263-9. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.
Zimmerman, Michael J. (2015).
"Value and Normativity". In Hirose,
Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The
Oxford Handbook of Value Theory.
Oxford university press. ISBN 978-
0-19-995930-3.
 Zimmerman, Michael J.; Bradley,
Ben (2019). "Intrinsic Vs. Extrinsic
Value" (https://plato.stanford.edu/e
ntries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/) .
The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved
January 3, 2024.

External links

Library resources about

Ethics

Resources in your library (https://ftl.to

olforge.org/cgi-bin/ftl?st=wp&su=Ethi
cs)
Resources in other libraries (https://ftl.
toolforge.org/cgi-bin/ftl?st=wp&su=Eth
ics&library=0CHOOSE0)
Meta-Ethics (https://philpapers.or
g/browse/meta-ethics) at
PhilPapers
Normative Ethics (https://philpaper
s.org/browse/normative-ethics) at
PhilPapers
Applied Ethics (https://philpapers.o
rg/browse/applied-ethics) at
PhilPapers
Ethics (https://www.inphoproject.or
g/taxonomy/2243) at the Indiana
Philosophy Ontology Project
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Ethics&oldid=1274213676"

This page was last edited on 6 February

2025, at 02:04 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0
unless otherwise noted.