Thomas Nagel Quotes

I would like us to think about it more explicitly, and not take our intuitions as the given of ethics, but rather to reflect on it, and be more open about the fact that something is an ethical issues and think what we ought to do about it.

I think that moral philosophy is useful for framing questions, but terrible at answering them. I think moral psychology is booming right now, and we're making a lot of progress on understanding how we actually work, what our moral nature is.

These arguments on each side (and many more might be produced) are so plausible, that I am apt to suspect, they may, the one as well as the other, be solid and satisfactory, and that reason and sentiment concur in almost all moral determinations and conclusions.

Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.

Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution.

The moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing.

Do you suppose that sacrifice is the hallmark of moral action?--Just stop to consider whether sacrifice is not involved in every action that is done with deliberation, the worst as well as the best.

It appears, then, that ethics, as a branch of knowledge, is nothing more than a department of psychologyand sociology.

But what of the voice and judgment of conscience? The difficulty is that we have a conscience behind our conscience, an intellectual one behind the moral. ... We can see quite well that our opinions of what is noble and good, our moral valuations, are powerful levers where action is concerned; but we must begin by refining these opinions and independently creating for ourselves new tables of values.

As therefore the state of man now is, what wisdom can there be to choose, what continence to forbear, without the knowledge of good and evil?

I doubt not, but from self-evident Propositions, by necessary Consequences, as incontestable as those in Mathematics, the measures of right and wrong might be made out.

This inability to think created the possibility for many ordinary men to commit evil deeds on a gigantic scale, the like of which had never been seen before. The manifestation of the wind of thought is not knowledge but the ability to tell right from wrong, beautiful from ugly. And I hope that thinking gives people the strength to prevent catastrophes in these rare moments when the chips are down.

The rules of morality are not the conclusion of our reason.

If people use common sense and their own guiding moral compass, I think they'll generally stay out of trouble.

Common sense is the measure of the possible; it is composed of experience and prevision; it is calculation applied to life.

At the end of the day, if there are truly ethical considerations, those have to override scientific considerations.

Right and wrong are not simply matters of evolutionary impacts and what is natural.

It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.

My definition of an educated man is the fellow who knows the right thing to do at the time it has to be done. You can be sincere and still be stupid.

Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.

One has only as much morality as one has philosophy and poetry.

It may not have the virtuous ring of the golden rule, but the maxim 'never say never' is one of the most important in ethics.

The science of morality is about maximizing psychological and social health. It's really no more inflammatory than that.

There's a great deal of difference between thinking reflectively about moral issues and achieving higher standards of ethical behavior.

In the last analysis sound judgment will prevail.