This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems like a misuse of the phrase free markets. I know people want to "see markets everywhere" but I really think this is going too far - is there any buying and selling going on here? It's like the "marketplace of ideas" - based on superficial characteristics (zomg choice!!!11) that don't really tap into the larger issus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.145.201 ( talk) 18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
An example might be that government regulation of social networking sites (a persuasive technology) could interfere with the ability of moral leaders to effect social reform. Langchri ( talk) 04:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The original article has morphed into an article about what pragmatists have said about ethics, rather than an article about a normative theory (the merits of which are independent of its authors). Anyone who wants to create an article about what pragmatists have said about ethics is free to create a separate article, so I am restoring the original topic: 1. I am again explaining the practice of pragmatic ethics (no article about a normative theory could be complete without such an explanation), 2. I am creating a "Relationship to Pragmatism" section where it would be appropriate to link information about what pragmatists have said about ethics or attempt to establish that either this theory or pragmatism entails the other, and 3. I am adding the synonym "gadfly ethics" as a name for this normative theory to avoid implying that being a "pragmatist" is either necessary or sufficient to be an "ethical pragmatist". Langchri ( talk) 04:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
How do pragmatists decide whether a change is progressive or regressive? Against what do they judge such? FurryAminal ( talk) 14:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems like a misuse of the phrase free markets. I know people want to "see markets everywhere" but I really think this is going too far - is there any buying and selling going on here? It's like the "marketplace of ideas" - based on superficial characteristics (zomg choice!!!11) that don't really tap into the larger issus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.145.201 ( talk) 18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
An example might be that government regulation of social networking sites (a persuasive technology) could interfere with the ability of moral leaders to effect social reform. Langchri ( talk) 04:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The original article has morphed into an article about what pragmatists have said about ethics, rather than an article about a normative theory (the merits of which are independent of its authors). Anyone who wants to create an article about what pragmatists have said about ethics is free to create a separate article, so I am restoring the original topic: 1. I am again explaining the practice of pragmatic ethics (no article about a normative theory could be complete without such an explanation), 2. I am creating a "Relationship to Pragmatism" section where it would be appropriate to link information about what pragmatists have said about ethics or attempt to establish that either this theory or pragmatism entails the other, and 3. I am adding the synonym "gadfly ethics" as a name for this normative theory to avoid implying that being a "pragmatist" is either necessary or sufficient to be an "ethical pragmatist". Langchri ( talk) 04:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
How do pragmatists decide whether a change is progressive or regressive? Against what do they judge such? FurryAminal ( talk) 14:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)