Joseph Wood Krutch Quotes

At the end of the day, if there are truly ethical considerations, those have to override scientific considerations.

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.

The ethic of conviction and the ethic of responsibility are not opposites. They are complementary to one another.

We can't make a decision based on PR value. We have to do what we think is right.

The act of willing this or that, of choosing among various courses of conduct, is central in the realm of ethics.

An act has no ethical quality whatever unless it be chosen out of several all equally possible.

There is an ever-widening gap between what science allows and what we should actually do. There are many doors science can open that should be kept closed, on prudential or ethical grounds.

It may not have the virtuous ring of the golden rule, but the maxim 'never say never' is one of the most important in ethics.

We are now facing a problem more of ethics than of physics.

doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right

One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue ... Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

There is nothing good or evil save in the will.

Is there one specific source that determines correct morality and everybody should follow that? Or should individuals come up with following that source or not depending on their situation?

Experience shows that if you put more ethicists on a problem, you can end up with more problems.

There is no right in acting.

There is but one right, and the possibilities of wrong are infinite.

An ethical action, like an unethical action, is usually analyzed by politicians purely in pragmatic terms.

It is seldom very hard to do one's duty when one knows what it is, but it is often exceedingly difficult to find this out.

We should reserve the notion of 'morality' for the ways in which we can affect one another's experience for better or worse. Some people use the term 'morality' differently, of course, but I think we have a scientific responsibility to focus the conversation so as to make it most useful.

Now here is a departure from the first principle of true ethics. Here we find ideas of moral wrong and moral right associated with something else than beneficial action. The consequent is, we lose sight of the real basis of morals, and substitute a false one.

I don't think anyone sets out to do something bad, it's just that it's very difficult.

It's easy to get into the grey zone [of ethics].

I have learned that a clear conscience, or a legal opinion, does not make you ethically bullet proof.

When the goals of science collide with moral and ethical judgment, there are certain times when science has to take a time-out.

If the end does not justify the means, what does?