Schizophrenia is a term often used to describe a split or division in a person's thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. In the context of modern ethical theories, the term could be used to describe the division or disagreement between different ethical frameworks and the conflicting values and principles that they promote.
One example of this schizophrenia can be seen in the divide between consequentialist and deontological ethical theories. Consequentialist theories, such as utilitarianism, hold that the moral worth of an action should be judged based on its consequences, with the goal being to maximize overall happiness or well-being. Deontological theories, on the other hand, focus on the inherent moral worth of an action itself, regardless of its consequences.
For instance, a consequentialist might argue that it is morally acceptable to lie in order to prevent harm to oneself or others, as long as the consequences of the lie are positive. A deontologist, however, might argue that lying is always wrong because it goes against the moral duty to tell the truth. This disagreement illustrates the schizophrenia between these two ethical frameworks and the different values they prioritize.
Another example of this schizophrenia can be seen in the debate between ethical egoism and altruism. Ethical egoism is the idea that it is always morally right to act in one's own self-interest, while altruism holds that the moral good is best served by prioritizing the well-being of others. These two theories are diametrically opposed and can lead to conflicting moral judgments in certain situations.
For instance, an ethical egoist might argue that it is morally right to prioritize their own well-being and happiness, even at the expense of others, while an altruist might argue that it is morally wrong to prioritize one's own interests over the interests of others. This disagreement highlights the schizophrenia between these two ethical theories and the different values they promote.
Overall, the schizophrenia of modern ethical theories can be seen in the divisions and disagreements between different ethical frameworks and the conflicting values and principles they promote. While some may argue that this schizophrenia is a weakness of modern ethics, others might see it as a strength, as it allows for a greater range of moral perspectives and the ability to consider multiple points of view.
Stocker, The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical opportunities.alumdev.columbia.edu
In the sterilized environment which Rousseau proposes for the growing child, affection, praise and approval, are some of the sacrifices made to this ideology. Both stress the complexify of the moral life, the inadequacy of rule-following as a guide to moral deliberation, and the importance of judgement in discerning the morally relevant features of particular situations. Then people with schizophrenia were simply killed by the use of gas chambers in the hope that the defective genes could be eliminated from the race. . They fail to examine motives and the motivational structures and constraints of ethical life. I do not seek here to prove the truth of the full unity thesis in fact I suggest a modification of it , but only to refute important extant criticisms of it, and thus to show that it remains a plausible view. Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Schizophrenia and Other Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Validity, Reliability, and Item Content of 1.
Michael Stocker, The schizophrenia of modern ethical theories
Application of the more plausible, contextual, account of character traits resolves the debate in favor of the friendly consequentialist. I shall also attempt two correlative tasks: to exhibit some constraints that motivation imposes on eth-. Available Instruments, Published in Schizophrenia Bulletin September 2. Journal of Philosophy, Inc. I argue that moral schizophrenia, properly understood, is not necessarily as disruptive as its name suggests. One of the popular myths about schizophrenia is that it involves a split personality: a Jekyl and Hyde personality. I explicate this alternative moral "epistemology," identify how it challenges the prevailing view, and indicate some of its resources for a liberatory feminist critique of philosophical ethics.
stocker_
The moral relationship, the paper argues, is one we simply share with each other in virtue of our shared vulnerability to attitudinal injury as rational agents. If however, partialists are opposed to justifications for basic principles that rely upon impartiality, they are committed, I argue, to drastic revisions in moral theory that have worrisome implications. . I conclude by articulating a sense in which some nontraditional epistemic norms are zetetic norms, and in which zetetic epistemology is an important part of the study of theoretical rationality. The helping professions make the world a better place for us to live in, even though they do not necessarily bear directly on the well being of any individual other than the recipients of care. This paper also provides possible modalities for the strengthening of the VSD methodology, particularly through the application of moral imagination and how moral imagination exceed the boundaries of moral intuitions in the development of novel technologies. .
