Moral Argument

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

В книге представлены результаты новейших научных исследований отечественных и зарубежных авторов в области юридической и моральной аргументации как практической аргументации о действиях. Показано, каким образом участники судебных споров и нравственных дискуссий осуществляют аргументацию на практике, какие критерии оценки аргументации они используют, какую роль в практической аргументации играют социальный контекст, наука и искусственный интеллект; дан философско-методологический анализ ряда резонансных дел.
Результаты исследований найдут применение в ИТ-приложениях в сфере социальной практики и гуманитарного знания и внесут вклад в развитие гражданского общества и совершенствование нравственной культуры, включая технологии электронной демократии, электронного правосудия, а также в повышение доступности социальных услуг, в том числе юридических.
Монография адресована философам, правоведам, практикующим юристам, специалистам в области искусственного интеллекта, управления и менеджмента, педагогам, а также широкому кругу читателей, интересующихся «секретами» построения рассуждений и оценки аргументации в области права и морали, ее историей и современным состоянием.

Examines various arguments about whether and under what circumstances political violence can be justified and how they can be employed in thinking ethically about violence. It begins by looking at arguments about the justifiability of violence that draw on major ethical theories such as deontology, utilitarianism and consequentialism. It then discusses more specific considerations and arguments concerning obligations to obey the law, the relationship between violence and reason, and between violence and democracy, and whether our duties and obligations regarding the use of violence are universal in scope or are limited by national, religious, community and class affiliation. Finally, it makes some novel suggestions about the overall purpose and conduct of discussions about the justifiability of violence in political theory and philosophy.

The proofs of God's existence have had an adventurous history and have evolved over time; but few can be found that have made many innovations and, based on historical discussions in this field, have been able to give a good insight into the validity or discretion of historical arguments. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has shown all these philosophical innovations in the valuable book "Explaining the Proofs of God's existence" and their other books. This paper intends to examine their powerful philosophical views, which are full of accuracy and innovation. These views are not just about the proofs of God's existence, but reflect their philosophical dedication in Western philosophy and the ability of Islamic philosophy in this field. In this article, various philosophical gestures are shown.

براهین اثبات خداوند تاریخ پر ماجرایی داشته است و به مرور تطور پیدا کرده است. اما کمتر کسی را می توان یافت که در
آن نوآوری های بسیاری داشته باشد و با تکیه بر بحثهای تاریخی در این زمینه توانسته باشد بخوبی دیدگاههای بدیعی را درباره اعتبار یا بی اعتباری برهانهای تاریخی داشته باشد. اما آیت الله جوادی آملی در کتاب ارزشمند تبیین براهین اثبات خدا و سایر کتابهایشان تمامی این نوآوری های فلسفی را نشان داده اند. در این مقاله درنظر است این دیدگاههای قدرتمند فلسفی ایشان که مشحون از دقت و نوآوری است نشان داده شود. این دیدگاههای ایشان فقط درباره برهانهای اثبات خداوند نیست بلکه نشانگر تعمق فلسفی ایشان در فلسفه غرب و به رخ کشیدن توانایی های فلسفه اسلامی در این زمینه است. در این مقاله انواع درسهای فلسفی که می توان از دیدگاههای ایشان اخذ کرد نشان داده می شود
این مقاله در مجله حکمت اسراء سال نهم شماره اول بهار و تابستان 1396 منتشر شده است.
حکمت اسراء، مجله علمی پژوهشی بنیاد وحیانی اسراء، سال نهم، دوره ۹،شماره ۱، شماره پیاپی ۲۹ بهار و تابستان 1396، صص41-5.

In an earlier paper, 'Peter Geach on nonsense, confusion and sin' 1 , I suggested that what one can say in explanation of one's own actions suffers from a severe limitation: one can shed little light on the question why one acted on one's reasons for an action rather than on one's reasons against that action. In this paper I want to explore this suggestion further. One of my tasks will be to distinguish my question from three standard philosophical questions that have tended to overshadow it: the question of freewill and determinism; that of the relation between fact and value; and that of the possibility of weakness of will. On these I shall, on the whole, maintain a studied agnosticism.

Nosso objetivo é explorar como a teorização filosófica, em particular a partir da ética filosófica, pode nos ajudar a entender o problema da justificação de objetivos educacionais, mais especificamente, como que é o ideal do pensamento crítico pode ser justificado enquanto um objetivo educacional. Faremos isso por meio da discussão crítica e detalhada do famoso argumento dos direitos intelectuais, uma forma de justificação do pensamento crítico como ideal educacional que apela a princípios morais sobre direitos intelectuais: o ensino do pensamento crítico justifica-se porque é um direito intelectual dos estudantes. Discutiremos quatro razões morais para considerarmos o pensamento crítico um objetivo educacional: o argumento do respeito, o argumento da autossuficiência, o argumento das tradições racionais e o argumento da cidadania.

How do moral arguments influence economic decisions? This study reconstructs five discussions about offshoring production to low-cost countries to understand how moral arguments attack the legitimacy of economic strategies. From these case studies about offshoring, I derive three mechanisms by which moral arguments influence economic decisions. Firstly, moral arguments appeal to values, influencing what their addressee defines as economically rational. Secondly, denouncing management decisions as immoral can deprive managers of valuable social capital and legitimacy within their company, thereby exerting economic pressure. Thirdly, depicting management decisions as immoral can destroy a company's public legitimacy, further exerting economic pressure. Apart from highlighting the social mechanisms underlying moral influence, this article also shows the limits of influence-seeking through moral arguments. It contributes to the existing literature on legitimacy and economic decision-making, especially with regard to offshoring. The article concludes by developing insights about how moral arguments and interestseeking interact in capitalism based on the empirical material.