Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  moral obligation
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
The aim of this paper is to search for an answer to the question whether an ethical person should aid others or whether it is a moral duty. The postulate of assistance follows from concern for the good of another person, which is a characteristic of morality. However, not all contemporary ethical conceptions postulate the moral value of assistance. In particular, the ethics of Nietzsche and libertarians question its moral importance. The question of whether assistance has moral value depends on how we understand morality and the compulsoriness of its principles. Providing material assistance is a human act and the value of that act is influenced by its circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, the moral obligation of aid varies from permission to requirement. There are also praxeological conditions of the value of material assistance, connected with a negative evaluation of wastefulness and inefficiency. If people should help, how strong is the obligation to do so? The answer depends on the source of duty; unfortunately, deontological ethics cannot clearly differentiate situations in which material assistance is a duty from situations in which it as supererogatory act. We are therefore left to our own moral sensitivity.
EN
The Aqedah story is a crown jewel of the biblical literature. Highlighting genuine emotions and important theological and ethical problems, it holds ground in all monotheistic religions. It brings about several questions concerning the mutual relationship between man and God, and man’s relationship with his son, wife and surroundings. Rabbinic literature provides plurality of perspectives on the Aqedah. It fills in gaps of the narrative and suggests directions o f interpretation that reflects in Josephus and perhaps in the Qumranic literature. Some interpretations are rooted in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha literature, and many continue in the medieval Jewish interpretation. Usually the rabbis see God’s request as a test of Abraham’s unconditional belief. Some view the text as Abraham mistaking God’s intent. Others are justifying the placement of God and blaming Satan and Abraham. Several rabbis considered the Aqedah as an act of Kiddush Hashem (martyrdom). Abraham is viewed as one who is truly motivated by his religious belief over moral command, and his immediate acceptance of the command was praised. Many consider the Aqedah also as Isaac’s test. There are several approaches regarding what truly happened on the mount. However, Isaac’s blood cannot be viewed as a counterblast to Jesus’ blood. Sarah’s death was related with the Aqedah. Abraham’s act is considered to be an enduring eminence of Israel.
PL
Rozmowa dotyczy, ogólnie rzecz ujmując, odpowiedzialności badaczy za sferę publiczną. Podjęte wątki koncentrują się wokół trzech głównych zagadnień: moralnego uzasadnienia uczestnictwa intelektualistów/badaczy w sferze publicznej; ideologicznego uwikłania edukacji i dyskusji w tej sferze oraz warunków (szczególnie uniwersyteckich) sprzyjających/blokujących uczestnictwo w niej pedagogów.
EN
The conversation concerns the responsibility of researchers for the public sphere. The analyzed threads revolve around three main issues: the moral justification for the participation of intellectuals/researchers in the public sphere, ideological entanglements of education and discussion in this area and the conditions (especially academic) that favor/block teachers’ participation in this sphere.
EN
In his considerations of the appropriate course of the educational process, John Amos Comenius pays a lot of attention to the issues of health. This article demonstrates that Comenius’ argumentation proceeds along the following lines. Lifespan is important because of the nature of the developmental process of human beings – the development of the mind and acquisition of knowledge take time. Comenius assumes implicite that God gives every man the lifespan which is appropriate for him, i.e. sufficient to achieve the level of personal development which God planned for him, and to accomplish everything God intended him to accomplish. If a man does not lead his life the right way, if – because of his laziness or stupidity – he does not fill his life with the right substance or ruins his health by inappropriate lifestyle and shortens his earthly existence, then he acts against God’s intentions towards him. Thus, neglecting one’s own health and harming it intentionally becomes a sin, while concern for one’s health becomes a moral imperative.
|
2013
|
vol. 5(41)
|
issue 1
005-023
EN
The present text attempts to answer the question concerning the sources, content and essence of moral obligation, as it is was conceived of by Karol Wojty]a, and the importance of moral obligation for the understanding of education. The essence of education, seen through the prism of the category of “moral obligation”, points to the affirmation of the dignity of the person as the foundation of education according to the personalistic approach. The pupil, following the personalistic norm, i.e. affirming the person, becomes morally good and thus fulfils his/her moral obligation. Preparing the pupil to discover and affirm the human dignity (which, in practice, means teaching to love) is the fundamental goal of educating the human being as a person and the necessary basis for other, particular educational goals. Love as a response to the dignity of a person is the content of moral obligation and the essence of personalistic education.
|
2016
|
vol. 7
|
issue 18
91-105
EN
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The following article aims to identify the main reasons that make it impossible to reconcile the modern notion of sovereignty or autonomy of the moral agent with the notion of the really existing sovereign good. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The main emerging research problem is to identify the sources of motivation behind the limitation of modern ethical thinking. For this purpose the author implements the interpretive stance inspired by Charles Taylor. It consists in exploring the moral motivation underpinning particular views on moral philosophy. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: It begins by indicating the motivations that fuel the twofold limitation of the good part of modern ethical thinking. The first restriction consists in reducing moral philosophy to questions of making any serious reference in ethical considerations to an objective moral source which exists independently from the human agent, be it Good, value or God. Following Taylor, who draws on Iris Murdoch, there are listed two reasons for the first limitation: the affirmations of ordinary life and the disengaged reason. As for the second restriction the influence of the “Enlightenment myth” and the “metaphysics of the modern world” which is implied by it are indicated as its determinants. RESEARCH RESULTS: The analysis brings the author to conclusion that that the main reasons for the impossibility of a reconciliation between the sovereignty of the moral agent and the notion of a really existing sovereign good are the “Enlightenment myth” and the “metaphysics of the modern world”. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The article concludes with the observation that either the “Enlightenment myth” or the “metaphysics of the modern world” are vastly uncritically assumed in contemporary ethical thinking. It is necessary to articulate and verify them, to which this article is a modest contribution and exhortation.
PL
CEL NAUKOWY: Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zbadanie przyczyn, dla których nowożytne pojęcie suwerennościlub autonomii podmiotu moralnego wydaje się nie do pogodzenia z koncepcją realnie istniejącego suwerennego dobra. PROBLEM I METODY BADAWCZE: Wynikającym z tego problemem badawczym jest ustalenie źródeł motywacji stojących za ograniczeniem współczesnej refleksji etycznej. Autor posługuje się w tym celu metodą interpretacyjną zainspirowaną przez Charlesa Taylora. Polega ona na wskazaniu motywacji moralnych stojących za konkretnymi poglądami w dziedzinie filozofii moralnej. PROCES WYWODU: Na początku autor identyfikuje motywacje stojące za dwojakim ograniczeniem współczesnej refleksji etycznej. Po pierwsze, za zawężeniem jej głównie do rozważań dotyczących moralnej powinności. Po drugie, do uniemożliwienia etyce odniesienia do jakiegokolwiek obiektywnego źródła moralności istniejącego niezależnie od ludzkiego podmiotu moralnego – obiektywnego Dobra, wartości czy Boga. Idąc za inspiracją Taylora, który odwołuje się do Iris Murdoch, podane zostają najpierw dwie przyczyny pierwszego ograniczenia: afirmacja zwyczajnego życia oraz niezaangażowany rozum. Następnie jako przyczyna niemożności sensownego odniesienia rozważań etycznych do jakiegokolwiek obiektywnego dobra istniejącego realnie poza ludzkim podmiotem wskazano siłę oddziaływania „mitu oświecenia” i wynikającej z niego „metafizyki świata nowożytnego”. WYNIKI ANALIZY NAUKOWEJ: Przeprowadzona analiza doprowadza autora do stwierdzenia, że główną przyczyną niemożności pogodzenia pojęcia suwerenności podmiotu moralnego z koncepcją realnie istniejącego suwerennego dobra jest „mit oświecenia” oraz „metafizyka świata nowożytnego”. WNIOSKI, INNOWACJE, REKOMENDACJE: Konkluzją artykułu jest stwierdzenie, iż zarówno „mit oświecenia”, jak i „metafizyka oświecenia” są w dużym stopniu przyjmowane bezkrytycznie jako założenia refleksji etycznej. Konieczna jest ich artykulacja i weryfikacja, do czego niniejszy artykuł jest skromnym przyczynkiem i wezwaniem.  
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.