I appreciate your response. Your interpretation of my position is basically correct. I would challenge your comment, though, because I think relying on our conscience without any tangible “real” meaning is ultimately unlivable. I also think following your conscience without any higher appeal is, more or less, in itself a dramatic step of faith. To say “Improving the lot of mankind is good in itself, because it will increase the number of human beings who are able to develop a conscience” is, in my mind, a dogmatic statement and the circularity I was arguing against. Your conscience is telling you to help people because, in your view, more people with a conscience is good. In other words, a good conscience is good because I have a good conscience. Like I said in the article, you can assert this all you want but there’s nothing objective about it. If, however, the endgame of helping people is because “the Good” is something “out there” and attainable, then we don’t have to succumb to circular reasoning. Of course, though, none of us can escape the circularity of rationality. We think we’re rational because we use rationality to think so. There’s no escape. Anyway, again thank you for the great response, I appreciated your feedback.