Rezumat articol ediţie STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI

În partea de jos este prezentat rezumatul articolului selectat. Pentru revenire la cuprinsul ediţiei din care face parte acest articol, se accesează linkul din titlu. Pentru vizualizarea tuturor articolelor din arhivă la care este autor/coautor unul din autorii de mai jos, se accesează linkul din numele autorului.

 
       
         
    STUDIA PHILOSOPHIA - Ediţia nr.2 din 2022  
         
  Articol:   SHOULD WE SUSPEND THE TRUTH TO PREVENT HARM?.

Autori:  OLUSOLA VICTOR OLANIPEKUN.
 
       
         
  Rezumat:  
DOI: 10.24193/subbphil.2022.2.10
Available online 2022-08-12
pp. 187-201

VIEW PDF

FULL PDF

ABSTRACT. The paper examines the ethics of truth telling and free speech in Jonathan Rauch’s The Humanitarian Threat. The central question is this: “Should we suspend the truth to prevent harm?”. Both humanitarians and the anti-humanitarians supply different responses to this question. While the humanitarians supplied a positive answer, Rauch argues that the anti-humanitarian posture of the exponents of liberalism supplied a negative answer. The paper considers the humanitarian argument that puts the welfare of the people above the truth or anything else. Meanwhile, for the anti-humanitarians, the right to speak the truth must be guaranteed at all time. This paper argues that, in practice, the morality of truth telling is not only context bound, it also depends on what the truth is meant to achieve. Thus, the suspension of the truth may be consistent with morality in some medical and sensitive security situations due to the tendency to cause harm. The paper does not argue that the truth be suspended arbitrarily or for mischievous reasons. It only concludes by identifying some practical situations under which suspension of the truth may not be inconsistent with morality.

Keywords: Truth-telling, Harm, Liberal Science, Humanitarianism, Situational Moral Relativism.
 
         
     
         
         
      Revenire la pagina precedentă