It is always nice to receive confirmation that one is on the right track. That has recently happened to me in the publication of two new books on Ethics that confirm ideas I have been presenting here at the Forum.

This link is to a column by Jessica Crispin, in Berlin, from a review she offers of the two recent volumes (It was reprinted in an e-zine issued by Drexel University in Philadelphia. The name of the magazine is "The Smart Set."

Scroll down to the fourth paragraph in her column at this link, HERE: The Smart Set: Good Times - July 8, 2009
It begins with the words: "This online world should be a mosaic but it is often giant blocks of black and white, right/wrong, good/bad, with no thought about what any of these ideas actually means. As we spend more and more time in isolation - headphones on during our commute, stuck in cubicles at work, watching television alone at night - the online world is becoming our main form of communication. That does not bode well for the future of human interrelations. Philosopher Richard Kraut explores these black and white regions in his new book What Is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well-Being,"


The confirmation of which I spoke is in the endorsement of, and emphasis on, flourishing as a measure of the good life; and kindness - as one method of adding value to a situation.
I have highlighted these concepts in the opening post of my threads HERE; http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4608-goodness-good-person-true-justice.html


And HERE: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/4502-essence-social-ethics.html


I'd like to know, do these two posts warrant re-reading? Did they make eminent sense, or did they only add to the confusion in this field? Were they sound? Did my arguments have sufficient justification? If not, tell me how I could have improved them. Thanks in advance.