Le présent travail entend développer une théorie permettant de décrire, d’expliquer et de réguler les désaccords moraux. Il privilégie une approche empirique du désaccord moral, mobilisant en priorité les données fournies par la psychologie sociale et la psychologie morale.La morphologie du désaccord moral (partie 1) indique que ce dernier puise sa source dans un imaginaire polémique, structuré par trois éléments : l’analogie, la métaphore, et le symbole. L’hybridation de ces éléments génère des réseaux symboliques, organisant la relation entre les protagonistes du désaccord.La généalogie du désaccord moral (partie 2) vise à déterminer empiriquement les origines de ces réseaux symboliques. Nous examinerons les processus psychologiques, anthropologiques, et socio-historiques sous-jacents au désaccord. Le rôle central de la famille –en tant que matrice, modèle, et objet du désaccord– sera ici souligné.La polémologie du désaccord moral (partie 3) s’emploie à réorganiser les réseaux symboliques dans une approche pragmatique et normative. Nous détaillerons les procédures visant à réguler les désaccords moraux et à transformer l’imaginaire polémique en imaginaire consensuel.S’ouvre alors la perspective d’une valorisation du désaccord, préalable indispensable à la réhumanisation de l’espace moral.Mots-clés : désaccord moral, philosophie morale, psychologie sociale, psychologie morale, imaginaire, analogie, métaphore, symbole, famille. / The aim of this study is to develop a theory in order to describe, explain, and regulate moral disagreements. Ours is an empirical approach to moral disagreement, based mainly on empirical data provided by social and moral psychology.The morphology of moral disagreement (part 1) reveals that it is drawn from polemical imagination, which consists of three key elements: analogy, metaphor, and symbol. Such hybridization gives birth to symbolic networks, organizing the relationship between the moral opponents.The genealogy of moral disagreement (part 2) aims to determine the sources of these symbolic networks. We will analyse the psychological, anthropological, and socio-historical processes underlying the moral disagreements. The key role of family – as matrix, model and object of disagreement – will be emphasized.The polemology of moral disagreement (part 3) attempts to reorganize the symbolic networks through a pragmatic and normative approach. We will analyse the procedures in view of a regulation including the transformation of polemical imagination into consensual imagination.Thus, moral disagreement must be reasserted, before any attempt to rehumanising the moral field.Key-words: moral disagreement, moral philosophy, social psychology, moral psychology, imagination, analogy, metaphor, symbol, family

The current TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement established by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is a major determinant of accessibility to drugs. In International Relations (IR), the discourse surrounds the role of these intellectual property rights on the global economic order. Pogge argues that the TRIPS agreement is immoral since it creates a global economic order that harms the poor mostly concentrated in the global south, whereas defenders of TRIPS argue that it is the only way to efficiently incentivise innovators whilst maintaining an open market. This thesis has fulfilled two purposes; firstly, to investigate the causal relationship between the TRIPS agreement and access to covid-19 vaccines in India and secondly, to analyse the ethical implications of the TRIPS agreement using International Political Theory (IPT). This thesis couples Pogge’s global justice theory with postcolonial theory and argues that it serves as a good framework to critique the TRIPS agreement. The methodological framework used to address the causal relationship between TRIPS and access to drugs is one of Bayesian process tracing. It was found that factors such as regulatory sabotage, production deficits and American trade law could be larger issues than TRIPS when it came to vaccine accessibility in India.

No description available.

No description available.

Divine Command Theory är en metaetisk position som innebär att vår moraliska kompass bör grunda sig i vad Gud anser är rätt eller fel. Givet att det existerar objektiva moraliska sanningar, är Divine Command Theory den mest lämpliga teorin för att på ett logiskt och kongruent sätt besvara på frågorna vart moraliska förpliktelser härstammar ifrån, hur vi känner till dessa förpliktelser och varför vi bör leva våra liv i enlighet med dem. Andra framträdande metaetiska positioner som evolutionsbaserad etik, moralisk realism och konstruktivism lyckas besvara olika enstaka aspekter av dessa frågor, men inte på ett kongruent, holistiskt och tillfredsställande vis. Således behöver vi Gud för att grunda objektiv moral. Invändningen Euthyphros dilemma besvaras med att det inte är ett dilemma. Invändningen the pluralism objection, besvaras med att det ensamt inte kan motbevisa giltigheten av teorin. Inom Shari’an förmedlas en sofistikerad samt holistisk syn på moral. Människans universella skyldighet att lyda Gud samt att följa profeten, i syfte att uppnå moralisk korrekthet, uttrycks i koranen. För att säkerställa detta fordrar det en korrekt tolkning av Shari’an. Relationen mellan moraliska förpliktelser och vilka som bär dess ansvar behandlas med utgångspunkt i individens förmågor, egenskaper, samt individuella omständigheter. Eftersom Gud är Allvetande känner han till varje individs situation. Andra aspekter av moral som sedvanliga metaetiska positioner typiskt inte behandlar, som intention och ansträngning lyfts i Shari’an. Vidare finner vi både positiva och negativa påföljder beroende på om man följer förpliktelserna eller inte. Påföljderna kategoriseras i två delar, den ena behandlar detta liv och den andra behandlar det nästkommande livet. Påföljderna svarar på den moralfilosofiska frågan varför man bör vara moralisk. Inom Islam inkluderas även djur och natur som subjekt vilka man har moraliskt ansvar för.

The purpose of this dissertation was to conduct an outcomes-based program evaluation for the Louisiana State Penitentiary (Angola) campus of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The study included one primary research question, with two subquestions. The primary research question asked to what extent students in the program developed moral judgment consistent with program goals of rehabilitating students and preparing them for effective ministry. The first subquestion asked whether statistically significant differences existed in the moral reasoning of students of different class years. The second subquestion asked whether statistically significant differences existed in the moral reasoning of students of different personality types. A cross-sectional study was conducted with students during the fall of 2005 using the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instruments. All 101 program students were invited to participate in the study. To provide a benchmark for student scores, 30 Seminary faculty members were asked to complete the DIT-2. The student response rates were 94% for the DIT-2 instrument and 97% for the MBTI instrument. The response rate for faculty was 20%. After removing two outliers from the freshmen class, statistically significant differences were found in the principled moral reasoning scores (P scores) of freshmen (m = 22.146, sd = 12.002) and juniors (m = 30.274, sd = 13.165). No significant differences were found in moral reasoning based upon personality types. The mean P score among faculty members was 34.02 (sd = 15.25). In response to the primary research question, it was determined student scores did show moral reasoning differences consistent with the program goals. Conclusions reached in this study were limited because of the cross-sectional design. Further research is necessary before conclusions may be generalized beyond the sample.

[pt] Esta dissertação tem como objetivo apresentar uma análise preliminar das causas que fomentam os conflitos político-ideológicos, utilizando como uma das principais bases teóricas os estudos do psicólogo social Jonathan Haidt, dentre outras abordagens por mim consideradas relevantes no tema. O objetivo é identificar se essas causas podem explicar o nível de polarização apresentado nas eleições de 2018 no Brasil, esclarecendo as causas gerais do comportamento humano que levam à polarização, como as razões que levam seres humanos a se unirem em grupos e a entrarem em conflitos, além de identificar as causas específicas dos conflitos entre direita e esquerda, delimitando de forma objetiva as suas diferenças e incompatibilidades. Para alcançar esse objetivo, foi necessário realizar um levantamento de teorias de diversas áreas do conhecimento, como a Psicologia Social, Biologia Evolutiva, Filosofia Moral, além das Ciências Sociais. As conclusões preliminares indicam que há fatores evolutivos e inatistas que norteiam a divisão de grupos e que as causas dos conflitos ideológicos estão relacionadas à dificuldade de diálogo e consenso devido às divergentes visões de mundo e fundamentações morais. A polarização brasileira vista nas eleições presidenciais de 2018 se tratou de uma polarização político-ideológica. Dessa forma, o levantamento teórico apresentado neste trabalho poderá servir de base para uma análise empírica mais aprofundada sobre o tema. / [en] This master s thesis aims to present a preliminary analysis of the causes that fuel political-ideological conflicts, using as one of the main theoretical bases the studies of the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, among other relevant theoretical approaches. The objective is to identify whether these causes can explain the level of polarization presented in the 2018 elections in Brazil, clarifying the general causes of human behavior that lead to polarization, such as the reasons that lead humans to join groups and enter into conflicts, as well as identifying the specific causes of conflicts between right and left, objectively delimiting their differences and incompatibilities. To achieve this objective, it was necessary to survey theories from various areas of knowledge, such as Social Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, Moral Philosophy, and Social Sciences. Preliminary conclusions indicate that there are evolutionary and innate factors that guide the division of groups and that the causes of ideological conflicts are related to the difficulty of dialogue and consensus due to divergent worldviews and moral foundations. The Brazilian polarization seen in the 2018 presidential elections was a political-ideological polarization. Thus, the theoretical survey presented in this work can serve as a basis for a more in-depth empirical analysis of the subject.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.