Voltaire Quotes

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.

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?

Inability to tell good from evil is the greatest worry of man's life.

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

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

Whether gods exist or not, there is no way to get absolute certainty about ethics. Without absolute certainty, what do we do? We do the best we can.

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.

Kant taught us that we should follow just those rules of conduct that we would want everybody to follow. Few find this generalization of The Golden Rule a great help.

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.'

I have a simple principle for the conduct of life- never to resist an adequate temptation.

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.

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

All good moral philosophy is ... but the handmaid to religion.

[R]eason is... given to us as a practical faculty, that is, as one that influences the will.

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.

Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature

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.

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

Why are we talking about this good and evil? They're just names for sides. We know that.

How can you do the right thing when you can't figure out what that is? When all you have before you are choices in various shades of wrong?

Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.

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

Zoroaster said, when in doubt abstain; but this does not always apply. At cards, when in doubt take the trick.

Philosophy rests on a proposition that whatever is is right. Preaching begins by assuming that whatever is is wrong.

Tolerance cannot afford to have anything to do with the fallacy that evil may convert itself to good.