And to get that far, many in the West feel Google has had to compromise its "do-no-evil" ethics by agreeing to some of the government's censorship rules.
But Ronald Steel's review of my book "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror" (July 25) is such a travesty that I feel I owe it to your readers to point out one essential error.
In THE LESSER EVIL: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (Princeton University, $16.95), Michael Ignatieff assesses America's war on terror and tries to determine what security measures a society can tolerate and still consider itself virtuous.
[This is part two of a three-part series on: Sin, Evil & Ethics. Make sure you read part one here.
This is part 1 of 3 of a series I am doing on the human condition: evil, sin and ethics.
On her view, Utilitarianism commits one to endorsing evil deeds, and Kantian ethics, with its notion of 'self-legislation' is just incoherent.
Since, according to Plato (and Socrates), virtue and happiness require knowledge, e.g., knowledge of goods and evils, Plato's ethics is inseparable from his epistemology.
Comarnescu proposed that Bogdan-Pitești and the equally controversial Arghezi were better understood through the logic of Hinduism ("the ancient Indian ethics"): "good and evil are not opposed, but collocated, combined, in a state of confusion".
The play itself is an extended metaphor about the weakness of personal ethics in the face of evil.
