Talk:Right (ethics)

'Right' right?
Should it be Right (philosophy)? It seems more like a philosophical concept to me than an ethical one. Or this could be made into the main article with a link to Right (legal concept). After all that formulation of an ethical concept derives from this one does it not?


 * I'm not so sure this article needs to exist at all. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and all that. I think Ethics covers it well enough on its own.
 * Also, ethics is a branch of philosophy, so any ethical concept is a philosophical concept already. And the idea that law derives from ethics is point-of-view; a POV I agree with, mind you, but still. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This needs a very serious clean-up, but I'm pretty sure that this article does need to exist. There are whole systems of ethics which are based on a basic concept "right", and there is a need of an article which gives a broad overview of this concept. I agree with you that the idea that law derives from ethics is pretty point-of-view, but it's a very widely held view, and once the article has been significantly expanded and improved, there's no reason why that shouldn't be dealt with. If you think it needs to be deleted, take this to WP:AFD. I'm not strongly in favour of keeping the article in its current state, but the concept is extremely important for ethics. Claritas (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are substantial reliable sources out there about the concept of rightness apart from ethics in general, then perhaps this does warrant an article, but the closest thing that I am aware of is Kant's distinction between what is right and what is good. All other discussion I have seen (in primary sources) about rightness is already covered by some branch of ethics. For what it's worth, Right and wrong already redirects to Ethics. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)