Question

How can you tell the difference between “strong” and “weak” opinions about ethics?

Answer 1

One way to distinguish between "strong" and "weak" opinions about ethics is by considering the degree of conviction or conviction behind them. A strong opinion about ethics is one that is held with a high level of conviction and is not easily swayed by counterarguments or alternative viewpoints. This type of opinion is often based on deeply held values or principles and may be difficult to change. On the other hand, a weak opinion about ethics is one that is held with less conviction and is more open to being swayed by counterarguments or alternative viewpoints. This type of opinion may be based on less thought or consideration and may be more easily changed.

Another way to distinguish between "strong" and "weak" opinions about ethics is by considering the level of evidence or support behind them. A strong opinion about ethics is one that is based on a solid foundation of evidence and is supported by well-reasoned arguments. This type of opinion is more likely to withstand scrutiny and challenge and is less likely to be swayed by emotions or personal biases. On the other hand, a weak opinion about ethics is one that is based on less evidence or is supported by weak or unconvincing arguments. This type of opinion is more likely to be influenced by emotions or personal biases and may not withstand scrutiny or challenge.

Answer 2

A person’s ethics are internal to the person. If the person’s behavior or action or thought, etc. can pass the mirror test, then it’s ethical for that person. The mirror test is this: the person stands in front of the mirror and asks: can I live with myself, am I happy with the decision I made, will I sleep well tonight, am I cool with the way I acted, etc? If the behavior is something that the person can “live with,” without regret, that behavior apparently falls within that person’s ethics. “Ethics” are more attached to the person than the group, and one cannot compare individual ethics because they’re abstract. Comparison of abstract concepts makes for poor conclusions. But people do refer to group ethics. Morals, on the other hand are more complex (more variables) because they can include various social aspects not shared by other groups.

One may look at examples in a person to identify potentially unethical actions or behavior. I have no idea how Tucker Carlson, Hannity, or Ingraham of Fox News can live with themselves after spreading mis-information to the American public in the days after the January 6 insurrection, supporting, or at least acquiescing in, the idea that the election of Joe Biden was illegitimate. The media did such harm to the American public - the lies on lies. But maybe I’m missing something - maybe they really thought… Nah!

Step-by-step explanation: