We usually can't know how, and we probably should not even ask, how our lives contribute to a better world.

Leaders of nations, and people whose wealth or fame gives them power over the lives of others quite often do more harm than good.

We are generally forced to choose one way or the other of distancing ourselves from Kant. I suppose I tend to choose the irreligious way. But I regret that Kant's path has not been followed.

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.

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

Adam Smith was aware of the way that economic interests could have a distorting and destructive effect both on the market and on politics.

I think Fichte did take it further than Kant by arguing that we can regard the moral law as objectively valid only by seeing it as addressed to us by another being, even though Fichte thought God could not literally be a person who could address us.