Yet another method would be to use something like the two step approach Gibbard uses when he analyzes judgments of rightness in terms of judging it rationally appropriate to feel guilt and anger at certain actions.
Third, some realists are prepared to claim more ambitiously that we can give a conceptual analysis of rightness in base terms (e.g. Jackson 1998, Ch. 5).
Consider utilitarianism and other consequentialist approaches to the normative structure of morality, which interpret moral rightness in terms of the value of the consequences (of actions, policies, institutions, or other objects of moral assessment).
Metaphysical reductions provide a constitutive account of some target domain (e.g., beliefs, free will, water, moral rightness) in terms of more basic features of the world (e.g., the properties postulated by an idealized physics, ideas in the mind of God, the mosaic of sense data).
Thus construed, Mozi's ethics is a kind of consequentialism that measures rightness in terms of consequences, where each person's welfare is to be considered equally, and where what is judged to be right might be a practice as well as particular actions.
In the very same paragraph in which he states that he sees no general rules for dealing with conflicts, he speaks in terms of "the greatest balance of prima facie rightness".
But there he is, in a halo of rightness.
It felt like Christmas Eve, full of rightness and promise.
And even 9/11 itself has a kind of rightness.
Although it was strange, the idea gave me an enormous sense of rightness.
