Religion, charity, pure benevolence, and morals, mingled up with superstitious rites and ferocious cruelty, form in their combination institutions the most powerful and the most pernicious that have ever afflicted mankind.
Collectivism, as an intellectual power and a moral ideal, is dead. But freedom and individualism, and their political expression, capitalism, have not yet been discovered.
The moral is obvious it is that great armaments lead inevitably to war.
Scientific man is already on the moon, and yet we are still living with the moral concepts of Homer.
If obedience invariably leads to cruelty, disobedience is our moral duty.
It seems to me that socialists today can preserve their position in academic economics merely by the pretense that the differences are entirely moral questions about which science cannot decide.
The biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass.
Human and moral factors must always be considered. They must never be missing from policies and from public discussion.
Playing somebody who's obsessed. Playing somebody who is transgressing, and who is really crossing moral lines and ethical lines. That's always interesting.
A psychological explanation of our feelings is not a moral explanation of our conduct.
One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.
I was aware that on my skill as a painter would depend the physical and moral possession of the model.
Moral theory develops from the divine command theory of medieval Christian philosophy, mixed up with a bit of ancient pagan virtue theory, to the purely secular moral sentiment and interpersonal reaction theories of Smith and Hume, to Kant's attempt to restore command theory but with something supersensible in the individual rather than God as the source of authority.
Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.
We now know that anything which is economically right is also morally right. There can be no conflict between good economics and good morals.
Knowledge, learning, talents are not necessarily connected with sound moral and political principles. . . . And eminent abilities, accompanied with depravity of heart, render the possessor tenfold more dangerous in a community.
We have before us the fiendishness of business competition and the world war, passion and wrongdoing, antagonism between classes and moral depravity within them, economic tyranny above and the slave spirit below.
Clearly, only very unequal intellectual and moral standing could justify having equality imposed, whether the people want it or not, as Dworkin suggests, and only very unequal power would make it possible.
I'm the kind of person who embarks on an endless leapfrog down the great moral issues. I put a position, rebut it, refute the rebuttal and rebut the refutation. Endlessly.
Is it not manifest that our academic institutions should have a wider scope; that they should not be timid and keep the ruts of the last generation, but that wise men thinking for themselves and heartily seeking the good of mankind, and counting the cost of innovation, should dare to arouse the young to a just and heroic life; that the moral nature should be addressed in the school-room, and children should be treated as the high-born candidates of truth and virtue?
