Does contemporary moral philosophy have any impact on the real world ?

does contemporary moral philosophy have any impact on the real world ?

or is it just about solving unrealistic moral "puzzles" or dilemmas ?

>does contemporary moral philosophy have any impact on the real world ?
No, and it never did.

Not trying to be a cynic or anything, but that's life. The only morality is: what benefits me and earns me more power is good, what doesn't do this is bad or irrelevant.

fucking meme science and new atheists are retarded.

Moral philosophy is just an attempt to take a human intuition given to us to survive in tribes, and combine it with logic to get crazy results.

It can't truly effect anyone, because our moral sense is inbuilt.

>because our moral sense is inbuilt

So inherited, both genetically and culturally?

Yes. The "moral sense" isn't actually some list of propositions, it's just the general tendency to deeply care about the people around you, as if they are an extension of yourself.

Moral philosophy is an attempt to pretend that this is actually some kind of realm of truths, instead of a fact about humans.

Everyone knows this. To get a westerner to give money to an African child, you have to show a picture of the African child to the westerner. Thus playing on this sense. Photographs and the internet are the greatest moral achievement ever, since they are constantly tricking us into caring about people who we shouldn't give a shit about.

Of course there's plenty of misguided moral intentions, but is the philosophers problem more to do with achieving results in an unreasonable time-frame?

Non-theistic moral philosophy is has a ton of impact on politics. Not much else though.

*is used by/distorted by politics (just as religion is too). with some degree of transference.

What's the best advice, avoid being manipulated or something like that?

I think contemporary moral philosophy is observing trends in current morality rather than creating them.

Why would that be good advice?

Education. Modern moral philosophical concepts such as human rights, discrimination or the combat thereof, etc. can be inculcated in the youth.

To choose your influences (aka know yourself etc) (as seems to happen (or not) anyway (relation between country of birth and philosophy/religion in general)) rather than accepting what you are given with no critical analysis, not saying that there's anything wrong with your explicit claim to never deny orthodoxy, just that deep ecology with a fluctuating aspect responding to new information and developments through time, seems to be a good direction for me.

Critical analysis can snowball and lead to all sorts of problems. It has good applications, but can also have catastrophic applications. Relying on orthodoxy gives a great deal of stability to society, since it is relying on beliefs that work more or less (although these beliefs are not always remotely true, neither are they necessarily optimal). In that context, critical analysis should probably be used more exclusively to fix problems, as opposed to for its own sake.

I wouldn't disagree that I tend to be more critical of problems and the proposed solutions, and that rapid untested change can have severe unforeseen consequences (ecosystem related for example), though everyone has their own vision of a better world filtered through their understanding/perception/experience of the world as they have seen it so far, let alone ideas of what a heaven/utopia (and it's opposite) would entail.

Which isn't helpful. A political cacophony is as harmful as totalitarianism, it's just less abrasive to hedonism.

But not all areas of the world have such deeply entrenched traditions and culture, yet are relatively stable in heterogeneity (Australia), regardless, Memento mori.

Unless drastical localization is the mainstay of politics, radical ideological diversity nullifies itself. That's why there's stability.

nullify or "balance"? I'm focusing more at the moment on the priorities which can/should be valued irrespective of ideology, in terms of anthropogenic influences on the environment leading to feedback loops with potential for severe and/or unforeseen detrimental impacts upon those implementing/permitting short term policies with quantity as a focus rather than a greater degree of precaution taken for the future.

Nullifies. It's like if you mix a drop of paint from every color.

By "environment" do you mean it just in the mother earth sense, or are you talking about things like social and cultural environment?

Well I see the artificial/natural divide as quite arbitrary, so I mean the interaction between the 'natural' environment and the totality of human activities, the form of which is a consequence in large part from the social and cultural practices/values, but to simplify it, you could look at it as the interactions between the living and non living (biotic and abiotic (with concepts/spooks etc being an emergent aspect of the biotic and intrinsically related).