This article presents evidence supporting the claim that ethical reasoning is a skill that can be taught and assessed. We propose a working definition of ethical reasoning as 1) the ability to identify, analyze, and weigh moral aspects of a particular situation, and 2) to make decisions that are informed and warranted by the moral investigation. The evidence consists of a description of an ethical reasoning education program—Ethical Reasoning in Action —designed to increase ethical reasoning skills in a variety of (...) situations and areas of life. ERiA is housed at a public, major comprehensive U.S. university—James Madison University—and assessment of the program focuses on interventions delivered prior to and during orientation for incoming first-year students. Findings indicate that the interventions measurably enhance the ability of undergraduate students to reason ethically. ERiA’s competency-targeted program and positive student learning outcomes offers a promising model for higher education ethics programs seeking to connect classroom learning in ethics to decision-making in everyday life. (shrink)

In this article the author shows that we must distinguish between criterion as a characteristic in a definition and as a norm for truth and ethical values. He shows that we must accept a hierarchy of such criteria, But that this hierarchy is not absolute. He also discusses and solves the 'paradox of the publican'.

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

G. H. Bird; Discussions: Kantian Myths, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 96, Issue 1, 1 June 1996, Pages 245–252, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristot.

In this contribution we investigate the conceptual coherence of penal substitution and its moral validity. After assessing two opposing modern contributions, we turn to Reformed and medieval scholasticism. This scholastic manoeuvre sheds additional light on the analytic questions at issue. Following Owen and Scotus in their use of a relational analysis of guilt and its punishment, we argue that penal substitution is conceptually and morally coherent, albeit not univocally vis-à-vis ordinary punishment. Absent from the case of substitution is personal deservedness; (...) herein we follow Murphy. However, this leaves open the conceptual possibility of representative deservedness. (shrink)