The debate about Scottish independence fits neatly into the categories the academic discipline of ethics likes to produce.
Charles Camosy's task is audacious: as a Catholic moral theologian, he thoughtfully engages the work of the controversial and often condemned ethicist Peter Singer.
The 19th-century Mormon kingdom emphasized the common good. Later came a shift toward personal morality as the mark of saintliness.
How should we decide who to vote for? Paul Root Wolpe thinks a candidate's personal ethics should be at the top of the list: When we care about a candidate’s character, we are really asking, Is this person authentic? Are their positions a true reflection of their inner values, or are they politically expedient? Is a change of opinion on an issue a result of the candidate listening to others, learning and making a principled decision, or is it a response to pressure, polls and popularity? . . . . It is in the American character to care about our leader’s values. We should be proud of that. I don't exactly disagree, but I don't find this all that helpful, either.
How do we move from Jesus' core ethical mandate to the complex issues we face in the modern world?