What is Meant by moral equivalency?
140549
"Moral Equivalence" is a term of the political arena, usually usually used in a negative way.\nIt was widely used during the Cold War and claimed that in a conflict, the two sides of this conflict could not be morally ranked in the sense that one side was better than the other. There also could be no ethical difference in the evaluation of the actions of either side.  This was a popular idea among the European (and I suppose American) Left of the day that somehow held that both parties to the Cold War were morally corrupt and equally evil. \nI have seen some modern day Blogs that seem to imply that the modern-day-actions of the USA in the "War against Terrorism" (however deplorable they may be) are actually as evil as Terrorism itself. \nThis is a perfect example of applying "moral equivalence" to a modern setup
416365
What is important is how they treat each other and that they have the same goals and morals.
788615
Ethics is/are much like discipline.  In this case, doing what is best for the most people effected.  Sadly, while it can be taught, the difference between right and wrong, most would rather just sit down and turn on the TV, leaving the teaching solely to the teachers at school.\nWhat is right?  An age old question yet to be fully answered.  That's like asking what is "Fair."  It is subjective.  To make something "even" means that someone has to lose while the other gains.  Is THAT fair?
1130162
That's a very good question. Are morals relative? Even the ones we think are basic--Thou shall not kill, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,Don't put that in your mouth;you don't know where it's been!--can be violated if one feels he/she has just cause, and whichever society that individual happens to exist in has differing opinions on whether or not his/her actions were justified.\nI suppose the only ethical constant I can think of would be the 5-second rule. Unless it's an Oreo. Then all bets are off.
865822
I'm not sure I exactly understand the supposition you're making.  In general, however, I would argue that moral and legal can be viewed as a Venn diagram - an act can be both, one of the other, or neither.  We probably wouldn't want it any other way, actually - hence the saying that "you can't legislate morality."
518014
Actually there really isn't.  There is only the major 10.  Everything after that is based on a individuals morals and ethics.
1134014
I think you misunderstood about the meaning of equality here.\nIt simply means nobody is to be discriminated because of his/her sex. It never said that everybody has to be equal in the sense of identical. \nIn other words, to make it more clear what is really meant:\nTreat EVERYBODY equally regardless of any aspect. \nBecause we all know that there are no humans that are 100% identical, not even identical twins...
655306
Moral Things are the most cherished, collectible, costly, dear, expensive, incalculable, incomparable, inestimable, invaluable, irreplaceable, prized, rare, rich, treasured, valuable, valued Things.........\n\nOfcourse Moral Values are Precious than money.......\n\nIf one loses money today you can get more than thet tomorrow..........\n\nbut if you lose your moral values then no one in this world will even care about you........\n\npurithatha
884057
Comparability is achieved when there is uniformity in the financial reports of different companies (escpecially from the same industry)  which enables a user to form an opinion based solely on those reports without further calculations or information. \n\nPrinciples-based standards do lead to more than one valid interpretation and lead to a decreased comparability superficially. For example, different depreciation methods and revaluation methods could be argued to make the assets value of a company irrelevant when compared to another company because both values have been worked out differently. \n\nHowever, principles-based standards are based on an intrinsic accounting principle, and if applied correctly and appropriately by firms could increase comparability at a more deeper/intrinsic level. \n\nLet's say there are two companies which use the same depreciation methods and therefore we could assume that their asset values are comparable. It turns out that one company is understating its depreciation expense and the profit figure is subsequently overstated. In this case the both the profit figures and the assets figures for both companies are not comparable because they are not both true and fair -- one of them has been overstated. \n\nThat's my understanding of comparability and principles-based standards. Hope it helps.
459727
morality - is defined as society's guidelines for conduct and for right from wrong. They are otherwise known as ethics. Each society in the world has different ethical boundaries and moral grounds for their conduct and actions. ie: in Muslim countries, women are generally surpressed and must be robed in public, in some European countries, there are places where women are allowed to walk around fully nude with no issues.\nIt is up to each person to decide their own moral code and ethics rules, however, if you diverge too far from what society expects, you are judged and will be made accountable to society's rules.
590629
Morality as in?\nIf you tell me I can help.
1049381
It's the same thing.\nNo difference between a moral leader\nand a moral hypocrite!\nDo as I say - not as I do!
438257
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality
135219
equity = The state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair. \n\nI think that is pretty easy to define everyone is treated the same no matter what. However in practice this is impossible unless we have computers making every decision. No matter how hard a manager tries, their personal opinions (i.e. if they have something in common with the person) will change their actions.
1104859
Equality. If all people are equal, then there would be nothing to fight about.
229359
The opposite of equal is unequal
881303
perhaps the expression 'i may be a burglar...but i am an honest one' is implying that not all thiefs are liars. burglary and lying, although both considered moral wrongs, are not one and the same thing. \nI think the assumption that stealing is always wrong is a dangerous one to make. suppose you're a poor person living on the street. you've got no home, no job, no money and no food. would you still consider it wrong to steal a loaf of bread?it also depends on your definition of the word wrong. in a legal sense, yes, stealing is always wrong. in a moral sense, it could well be a different story. One must consider the context of the theft. Stealing to survive is very different to stealing for the sake of it.\n\nas for honour amongst thieves, i don't think it means that stealing is honourable. the word 'amongst' should not be forgotten. honour amongst thieves is a reference to the idea that although thieves generally have no scruples or moral boundaries, they do have their own set of rules when they're dealing with each other. Something like a pirate's code. They'll raid, pillage and plunder but in their dealings with other pirates, they have a code of conduct or a code of honour to which they hold themselves.