Sometimes when a philosopher's views are widely rejected by the world, the fault is not with the philosopher but with the world.

In any matter of moral importance, our first task, before we plunge ahead and decide what to do, is to figure out what we ought to do.

It is sad to witness the persistence in our society of the racism and xenophobia that seems to be a permanent part of our political culture. It is shameful to see politicians exploiting these human weaknesses in order to gain political power. It is most depressing of all to contemplate a future in which politicians who do this will continue to have influence over people's lives.

It is both theoretically mistaken and morally wrong to regard others as objects of investigation rather than partners in free rational communication.

Capitalism has not proven to be a transitional form, a gateway to a higher human future.

I think it is clear that what we ought to do has to be independent of our decisions about what to do, and independent of any procedures we might use in making such decisions.

Consequentialist theories pretend that we can set some great big ends (the general happiness, human flourishing), provide ourselves with definite enough conceptions of them to make them the objects of instrumental reasoning, and then obtain enough reliable information about what actions will best promote them that we could regulate our conduct by these considerations alone.