Talk:Moral equivalence

Question

I have tried to look this up in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, but I have only come up with the following:

• Moral Scepticism
• Moral Relativism
• Moral Realism

as well as a few more going in the same direction. There are papers from the early 20th century that are given as referene. Any idea why the Stanford Encycopedia of Phliosophy does not have an entry? --Eptalon (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Also The Deflationary Theory of Truth, since I am not a philosopher, I am clueless... --Eptalon (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Could it be that this is not a philosophical issue? Your question helps to show how effectively this logical fallacy misleads us. Please give some thought to en:Wiktionary:morality. You may notice that the en:Wiktionary page includes a "usage note" which explains

• Although the terms morality and ethics may sometimes be used interchangeably, philosophical ethicists often distinguish them, using morality and its related terms to refer to actual, real-world beliefs and practices concerning proper conduct, and using ethics to refer to theories and conceptual studies relating to good and evil and right and wrong. In this vein, the American philosopher Brand Blanshard wrote concerning his friend, the eminent British ethicist G. E. Moore: "We often discussed ethics, but seldom morals ... He was a master in ethical theory, but did not conceive himself as specially qualified to pass opinions on politics or social issues."

Moral equivalence is only a en:Wiktionary:trope used in en:Wiktionary:polemics. Its flawed logic draws a false analogy. It is apples and oranges reasoning. I wonder if the article would be improved by adding just two short sentences with inline cite support?

Moral equivalence is not term of philosophy; rather, it is only a logical fallacy used in arguments.<:ref>Blanchard, Brand. (1980). The Philosophy of Brand Blanshard, Vol. 1, p. 85; excerpt, "We often discussed ethics, but seldom morals ... He was a master in ethical theory, but did not conceive himself as specially qualified to pass opinions on politics or social issues."</ref>

Do I need to try to explain again in different words? --Ansei (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The word "moral" doesn't marry well with words like "ranking" or "hierarchy" or "equivalence" -- see definition of "Moralist" at FreeDictionary.com

1. (Social Science / Education) a person who seeks to regulate the morals of others or to imbue others with a sense of morality
2. (Philosophy) a person who lives in accordance with moral principles
3. (Philosophy) a philosopher who is concerned with casuistic discussions of right action, or who seeks a general characterization of right action, often contrasted with a moral philosopher whose concern is with general philosophical questions about ethics

The subject of this article is difficult; but it is needed and it is practical. The article is a small step in a process of expanding the SEWP vocabulary. This term is needed for responding to issues at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bullying. --Ansei (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation it really help understanding; and no, I don't think further explanation is stictly necessary.--Eptalon (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)