Can we establish an objective criteria for inclusion? Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries? It's difficult to ascertain whether ethics of care deserves similar standing to the three dominant normative ethical theories for example, or which philosophers belong in the list of ethicists by reading the individual articles alone. Any proposals?Skomorokh 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links for these two ethical concepts are woefully lacking. Right currently refers to legal rights, as in a right to due process, with no reference to the opposite to wrong. Wrong, while going to a page that describes it ethically ("the opposite of right"), still has little substance. Can someone please improve this wrong.—Red Baron 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using Right and wrong, which currently redirects to Ethics, as the page to describe the ethical meanings of these words.—Red Baron 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this links to a disambiguation page. For this Template perhaps the article Trust (social sciences) was intended. Since this template is on many pages is there a simple way to update all the pages with this template or does it have to be done on an individual basis? Lmielke359 03:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that responsibility (in particular: "Moral responsibility") isn't listed as a core issue of ethics. - Atfyfe 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I included Socrates but it was removed saying "Socrates not recognized in contemporary literature as a pre-eminient ethical theorist." But It is always recognized as a moral philosopher (even cited on top of Ethics) and still very influential to some that don't accept any kind of contingency.--Pediboi (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responsibility is a disambiguation page. What type of responsibility is intended here? (There is already a separate link to Moral responsibility.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether worship should or should not be a "topic within ethics" is frankly irrelevant. What cannot be argued is that worship is a central part of religious ethics, for right or wrong. It is basic Wikipedia policy that what placed in this encyclopedia does not have to be the truth but only a reporting of the (right or wrong) opinion of others. 192.12.13.7 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see an edit war. Happy to see a discussion. IP wants my opinion so, sure, I'll offer some thoughts.
Here's why I don't think "Worship" needs to be here. We should ask ourselves: Can worship be an important part of life? Yes. Do religious ethical thinkers have a lot to say about worship? Absolutely yes! On the other hand, those thinkers also have a lot to say about caring for your children, gathering for mass, and many more activities. The question is whether worship is directly related to the "study" of what is "right and wrong". Worship is not direct study.
So no, I don't think we should change the template. Worship is still very easy to find on wikipedia. IP, just to make sure you don't think worship is being ignored completely, I made an edit to the "see also" list over at Ethics in religion. (Worship is now listed here.)
Good luck everyone.
-Tesseract2(talk) 08:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to include Template:Good and evil within the Concepts section of the Ethics template and remove any topics within the Concepts section to avoid duplication? This would be a template within a template. 66.180.23.144 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to provide several quotations from the article's page as a reason for why I decided to add it to the template.
"According to the causal impact view, something is important if it has a big causal impact on the world. This view is rejected by various theorists, who insist that an additional aspect is required: that the impact in question makes a value difference. This is often understood in terms of how the important thing affects the well-being of people."
"In the realm of ethics, the importance of something often determines how one should act towards this thing, for example, by paying attention to it or by protecting it. In this regard, importance is a normative property, meaning that importance claims constitute reasons for actions, emotions, and other attitudes."
"Importance plays various roles in ethics, for example, concerning what reasons we have for an action, how we should act, and what merits attention. Questions of importance play a direct role in morality. According to utilitarians, for example, only the consequences of an action in terms of well-being are important for its moral value."
The above quotations were the reasoning for me to add importance to the template. Since the addition was rejected on the basis of being "too general" by @WeyerStudentOfAgrippa, could it be that importance would fit more with metaphysics than ethics, because it is a property of an entity? However, simply being a property of entity is not enough, for something to be important it also must be valuable in some way, and therefore, making it related to ethics. Avery127 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link to this category was removed by @Tenpop421 on the basis of "images arent very relevant to ethics". To which I must ask, what images are considered relevant to ethics? I think some images in the subcategories are relevant, such as:
I am presenting these links as evidence that wikimedia commons should be included in the template, because I see templates as a way of uniting all relevant categories on particular topics, in this case, the topic of Ethics. Without the commons link, this template would simply be incomplete. And if you still do not consider the above images relevant, I would like to know which images do you consider relevant to Ethics. Avery127 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]