‘Madness’ became a complete defence regarding criminal charges as early as the time of Edward III in the 14th Century. In the following centuries, prominent legal treatise shifted from the ‘knowledge of good or evil’ test, to the ‘wild beast test’ in the eighteenth century. Courts then settled on the M’Naghten rules in 1843, byContinue reading “The Insanity Defence: Is ‘Wrongness’ Legal or Moral?￼”
Everyone has probably heard someone say something along the lines of “I don’t care about politics,” “I’m not a political person,” or “I don’t know anything about politics, so I just stay out of it.” The totality of these sentiments reveals two things about America’s views of politics: one, they don’t know what “political” meansContinue reading “Being Apolitical Is Not a Virtue”
Following the layout of Haslanger’s newly revised gender concepts, I will be analysing her revision and revision of concepts in general. This will focus on the limits of revision such as continuity and hierarchy, before moving onto the arguments for the significance of conceptual engineering.
‘Bella, horrida bella’ How can war ever be justified? Does a moral threshold that makes war acceptable exist? For the finale of my ethics series, I wanted to go out with a bang… see what I did there… Anyway, the ethics of war explores the moral limitations and ethical boundaries of conflict. It’s almost aContinue reading “Let’s Get Ethical Pt 3: War and Peace”
Normative ethics is the second branch of ethics, investigating how we morally act and ought to act. This ranges from discussion concerning murder and assault, to cheating on your girlfriend (naughty naughty). This is distinct from metaethics (my previous blog) in that normative ethics examines the standards and criteria of actions, according to different schoolsContinue reading “Let’s Get Ethical Pt 2: Normative Ethics”