Alexei Panshin Quotes

As to ethics, unfortunately, we are still at sea. We never did have any popular base for what little ethics we knew, except the religious theories, and now that our faith is shaken in those theories we cannot account for ethics at all. It is no wonder we behave badly, we are literally ignorant of the laws of ethics, which is the simplest of sciences, the most necessary, the most continuously needed. The childish misconduct of our 'revolted youth' is quite equaled by that of older people, and neither young nor old seem to have any understanding of the reasons why conduct is 'good' or 'bad.

Morality, when vigorously alive, sees farther than intellect, and provides unconsciously for intellectual difficulties.

My work is based on the assumption that clarity and consistency in our moral thinking is likely, in the long run, to lead us to hold better views on ethical issues.

The problem, of course, was that people did not seem to understand the difference between right and wrong. They needed to be reminded about this, because if you left it to them to work out for themselves, they would never bother. They would just find out what was best for them, and then they would call that the right thing. That's how most people thought.

The whole speculation about morality is an effort to find a way of living which men who live it will instinctively feel is good.

We can assume that most people, most of the time, are moral creatures. But imagine that this morality is like a gearshift that at times gets pushed into neutral. When that happens, morality is disengaged. If the car happens to be on an incline, car and driver move precipitously downhill. It is then the nature of the circumstances that determines outcomes, not the driver's skills or intentions.

The feeling of right or wrong is the beginning of wisdom.

Every act of every man is a moral act, to be tested by moral, and not by economic criteria.

I can only say that, while my own opinions as to ethics do not satisfy me, other people's satisfy me still less.

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

Moralism doesn't produce morality; it produces immorality.

Sensibility appears to me to be neither good nor evil in itself, but in its application. Under the influence of Christian principle, it makes saints and martyrs; ill-directed, or uncontrolled, it is a snare, and the source of every temptation; besides, as people cannot get it if it is not given them, to descant on it seems to me as idle as to recommend people to have black eyes or fair complexions.

Morality binds and blinds.

Ethics, as has been well said, are the finest fruits of humanity, but they are not its roots

Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty.

The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions.

The characteristic feature of all ethics is to consider human life as a game that can be won or lost and to teach man the means of winning.

I conceive ethics as a branch of psychology.

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

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.

People don't get better, they just get smarter. When you get smarter you don't stop pulling the wings off flies, you just think of better reasons for doing it.

The world of empirical morality consists for the most part of nothing but ill will and envy.

Man can sin against nature in two ways. First, when he sins against his specific rational nature, acting contrary to reason. In this sense, we can say that every sin is a sin against man's nature, because it is against man's right reason.

There are two methods of human activity - and according to which one of these two kinds of activity people mainly follow, are there two kinds of people: One use their reason to learn what is good and what is bad and they act according to this knowledge; the other act as they want to and then they use their reason to prove that that which they did was good and that which they didn't do was bad.