Came across by graduate student Joshua Greene, which attacks head-on some compelling questions about the nature – and definition(s) – of morality. A really interesting paper, despite its length, but the payoff for me in the short term was simply his proposal to split the word “moral” into two – moral(1) and moral(2). The ambiguity and confusion surrounding the word “moral” – and the dearth of alternatives – has long bothered me, as I do consider myself a moral person, but have had difficulty reconciling my conception of “morality” with, say, the malignant received “wisdom” of your average “moral majority” conservative Christian.
Anyway, he splits “moral” thusly:
moral(1): of or relating to the facts concerning right and wrong, etc. (ie, moral realism)
moral(2): of or relating to serving (or refraining from undermining) the interests of others (aka moral anti-realism)
Flash of lightning! I’d been searching for a word to adequately express my own outlook for longer than I care to admit – “altruistic” implies a more active “charity to the poor” stance, “ethical” doesn’t quite cover it. Moral anti-realist sounds too postmodern. But I can get on board with moral(2).
Anyway, if reading 400-page theses on Philosophy is your thing, definitely put this one on your list: by Joshua Greene.