Tupac Shakur Quotes

Morality is a luxury we can't afford out here. There's no right or wrong, just survival or death.

You may, if you are an old-fashioned schoolmaster, wish to consider yourself full of universal benevolence and at the same time derive great pleasure from caning boys. In order to reconcile these two desires you have to persuade yourself that caning

For a good cause, wrongdoing is virtuous.

Moral philosophy is nothing else but the science of what is good, and evil, in the conversation, and society of mankind. Good, and evil, are names that signify our appetites, and aversions; which in different tempers, customs, and doctrines of men, are different.

Moral sensibilities are nowadays at such cross-purposes that to one man a morality is proved by its utility, while to another its utility refutes it.

I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.

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

There are worse things than a lie... I have found... that it may be well to choose one sin in order that another may be shunned.

You can't slice up morals.

The moral man is as guilty as the rest. His morality cannot save him.

Conscience and cowardice are really the same things, Basil. Conscience is the trade-name of the firm. That is all.

Morality is a code of black and white. When and if men attempt a compromise, it is obvious which side will necessarily lose and which will necessarily profit.

A little hypocrisy is better than losing.

He [William Gladstone] made his conscience not his guide but his accomplice.

Ethics and Washington DC. Are they mutually exclusive?

Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometime's by action dignified

If you say morality is just what you like, you lose the metaphysical level of what in the history of philosophy is called 'categorical imperative.'

What most men call their conscience is imaginary virtue switching left or right according to self-interest.

In cases of doubtful morality, it is usual to say is there any harm in doing this? This question may sometimes be best answered by asking ourselves another; is there any harm in letting it alone?

Conscience gets a lot of credit that really belongs to cowardice.

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.

Our whole life is startlingly moral. There is never an instant's truce between virtue and vice.

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.

Science, by itself, cannot supply us with an ethic. It can show us how to achieve a given end, and it may show us that some ends cannot be achieved. But among ends that can be achieved our choice must be decided by other than purely scientific considerations. If a man were to say, "I hate the human race, and I think it would be a good thing if it were exterminated," we could say, "Well, my dear sir, let us begin the process with you." But this is hardly argument, and no amount of science could prove such a man mistaken.

We're capable of understanding that someone has to drop an atomic bomb on a town of innocent civilians, but not that others have to cut up prostitutes who spread disease and moral depravity in the slums of London. Hence we call the former realism and the latter madness.