Template:Did you know nominations/Ethics

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethics

• ... that some ethical theorists believe that all moral claims are false? Source: ^[1]
  • ALT1: ... that according to Socrates's ethical philosophy, a person cannot perform an evil deed if they know that it is evil? Source: ^[2]
  • ALT2: ... that ethical theorists are divided on whether it is morally acceptable to kill one innocent person in order to save five? Source: ^[3]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Foam depopulation
  • Comment:

Sources:

• Miller, Christian B. (2023). "Overview of Contemporary Metaethics and Normative Ethical Theory". In Miller, Christian B. (ed.). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Ethics. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  ISBN 978-1-350-21790-4. Archived
  from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 22, 2023.
• Milevski, Voin (17 February 2017). "Weakness of will and motivational internalism". Philosophical Psychology. 30 (1–2).
  doi:10.1080/09515089.2016.1255317
  .
• Reilly, R. (1977). "Socrates' Moral Paradox". The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy. 8 (1).
  ISSN 0038-481X
  .
• Woollard, Fiona; Howard-Snyder, Frances (2022). "Doing Vs. Allowing Harm". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 5 October 2023. Retrieved 7 September 2023.
• Rini, Regina A. "Morality and Cognitive Science". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 7 September 2023. Retrieved 7 September 2023.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ethics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Easy pass. Soon enough after a GA with citations in the right place. QPQ done. A tad worried about a couple borrowed clauses from this source, but they seem relatively negligible and might even be standard terms in this field. Overall, great to see this article reach GA and glad an interesting hook from it will run at DYK. Good work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just want to point out that Plato's dialogues don't necessarily represent the teachings of the historical Socrates (see Socratic problem). The sources both say "Plato's Socrates", and ALT1 needs some similar qualifier. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for this detailed observation. I'm not sure that this qualification is required since this claim is found in various sources, many of which simply talk about Socrates. See, for example, [1], [2], and [3]. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I was already wondering why some nominators provided 2 reviews. By my count, I'm at 15 completed nominations plus 3 open ones, which is still below the double-review-threshold. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The QPQ check tool to the right counts only 19. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If you feel that you have done less than 20 noms this can go forward. This case is on the honor system.-

WP:WAWARD

) 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Checked Phlsph7's count, and also got 15 completed noms. Restoring Pbritti's tick, as a second QPQ review is not required. Sorry that a more thorough check wasn't done before this nomination was interrupted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)