Reply to comment

By showing how moral judgments are ex-post-facto explanations of moral intuitions, Haidt does a pretty good job of explaining "the futility of most moral arguments." How can you accomodate his research into your own upcoming search for an answer to an ethical dilemma?

I feel that ethical dilemmas do not have a right/wrong answers; instead, they have pros and cons for each side. This is why it's so hard to find a solution to a given problem.

He states that moral reasoning is usually followed after a judgement is made. Perhaps this is especially true for ethical dilemmas - many form more pros and cons for each side after there has been a decision.

We should note the idea of compromise and how which side is to work with the other to negociate to maximize the satisfaction for both arguments.