By changing our point of view our position of "rightness" changes.
So, a position of "rightness" is actually just a point of view.
Am I in a position of "rightness"?
Combine this criterion of rightness with a view that we should be actively trying to promote overall happiness, and one has a serious incompatibility with psychological egoism.
Perhaps Bill Maher will get to this topic one of these days but this is a response to what Lang calls an important, forcefully argued article in which James Lenman "claimed that consequentialism, which is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by its total overall consequences, is exposed to a crippling difficulty.
There is some sign in his published paper of that date that he had not yet extended the new view to include rightness, i.e. that he had come to distinguish rightness, which remained a property of the act and not of the agent, from obligation or obligatedness, now appearing as a property of the agent.
Assuming that natural and supernatural properties are among the base properties, the supervenience of rightness on the base properties would be easily explained on this view: because rightness is a base property, on this view, there clearly cannot be a difference in rightness without some difference in base properties.
But the rightness of Adler's view of Kael as nasty, self-promoting gasbag only become more obvious as Kael's reputation disappeared after she lost her New Yorker post and power.
(1993, 231) Herman's proposal thus has Kant's view grounding the rightness of actions in rational agency, and then in turn offering rational agency itself up as a value.
But there he is, in a halo of rightness.
It felt like Christmas Eve, full of rightness and promise.
