چکیده:
What is morality’s scope? Should all our actions be evaluated morally? Is it necessary to be causally responsible for harm to have a responsibility to reduce it? Is there a morally relevant distinction between those consequences of our actions which we intend or do and those which we foresee but do not intend or allow but do not do? Is helping others a matter of supererogation (i.e. beyond the call of moral duty) or a matter of obligation? These are crucial questions that need to be debated in normative and applied ethics. However, they were not raised seriously and independently until the last decades of the 20th century. There are several answers to these questions. This paper defends the answers of an approach which is called “moderate morality.” So, at first, it defines “moderate morality,” and pays heed to the views of its opponents, including Peter Singer, Shelly Kagan, and Peter Unger. Then, it tries to defend “moderate morality” based on “interest-based contractarianism.” Finally, it examines “its result in applied ethics” and tries to find a reasonable answer to a crucial question in the “political ethics of international relations” in our globalized era: What moral obligation, if any, do we have individually and as a society toward the people whose basic human rights are being violated not only in our country but also all over the world?
خلاصه ماشینی:
Moderate Morality: An Interest-Based Contractarian Defense & its Applied Result in the Political Ethics of International Relations* Shirzad Peik Herfeh** Assistant professor, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin Abstract What is morality’s scope?
” Finally, it examines “its result in applied ethics” and tries to find a reasonable answer to a crucial question in the “political ethics of international relations” in our globalized era: What moral obligation, if any, do we have individually and as a society toward the people whose basic human rights are being violated not only in our country but also all over the world?
It means that moderate morality believes in a pro tanto (NOT decisive) reason to promote the overall good as well as constraints and their principled defeasibility.
It is worth mentioning that although it is my opinion that interest-based contractarianism is a powerful theory, I try to remain neutral toward it in this paper and my claim is that – regardless of its additional merits – it has the capacity to defend moderate morality.
According to moderate morality, which is itself based on our own self-interest, we should not be neutral bystanders in cases of injustices and human rights violations.
Most interest-based contractarian accounts share two important notions about the conditions that must obtain at the bargaining table: the parties to the agreement are thought of as being supremely rational – "being rational is the non-moral idea of choosing effective means to one's ends" (Smith, 2008, p.