Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
This article picked by a teacher with suggested questions is part of the Financial Times free schools access programme. Details/registration here.
Read all our philosophy picks here.
Specification:
Some philosophers suggest that moral decision making should be impartial. They urge us to take the point of the view of the universe (sub specie aeternitatis). They argue that we should try stop personal attachments or sentiments affecting our moral reasoning.
Other philosophers disagree. They argue that such a requirement is too demanding or impossible. Some argue that the point of view of the universe is not a good view from which to make moral decisions and that morality requires us to consider our attachments to specific people or groups of people.
Click the link below to read the article and then answer the questions:
Israel grapples with ‘Eichmann’ dilemma over Hamas attack trials
-
Do you think we can take an impartial view when making moral decisions?
-
How is this debate relevant to the article you have read?
-
What do you think about the different challenging decisions reported in the article?
Jack Robertson, Queen Elizabeth’s School
