The Leveson Inquiry has been saturating our morality sponges for what seems like a thousand aeons.
Unfortunately, when we teach morality, when we study the history of morals, we always analyze the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and do not read [Colquhoun], this character who is fundamental for our morality.
So we shouldn't worry about our morality being too perfect for our history, or not as perfect as our history might let us get away with, or about how to choose between the two.
I don't know, that I entirely agree with Sumner, but he has a point, that part of our morality is to do good for the world by doing things like set up railroads, or Microsoft.
If we have to legislate "common sense" morality for our representatives to the federal government, how can we turn to them for ethical leadership?
… by simply finding the principal eigenvector of the "cooperation matrix," we then have our objective measure of morality for each individual.
What must be pointed out about such a conception of morality, for our purposes, is that any advantage it has over the conception of morality as an impartial point of view presumably arises from the fact that the ideal observer is not completely defined in terms of impartiality.
For years our politicians have piggy-backed upon Christian morality for electoral advantage.
You are made for goodness, for honesty, for morality, for love; so are our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in the US, in Syria, in Israel and Iran.
Unfortunately, all too often religion substitutes morality for God's glory and misses the whole point of our unique identity.
