How should we understand the moral when all religious and traditional consulting with the justification deleted? As for the content of this question, Tugendhat is close to Kant, but Kant's claim of an absolute foundation of morality is untenable. Instead, the author proposes a "tissue of reasons and motives" that each have their specific value, although all of them are restricted: the amoralist you can not refute.  Since you can not substantiate absolutely Kant's concept of universal and equal respect for the moral law, but only do so plausible, these lessons also explore other conceptions likely to allow construction of an ethics for our time. Subject of analysis are the concepts of Kantian discourse ethics, Schopenhauer and Hegel, Alsdair MacIntyre, Hume and utilitarianism, among others.  Returning to the conceptions of Aristotle and Erich Fromm, Tugendhat is guided by the question of the relationship between the moral virtues and the virtues of the pursuit of happiness. Going back to Adam Smith, extends the Kantian moral concept to a moral that not only refers to acts and omissions, but also intersubjective affective acts. This also shows that the regulatory moral of the modern age needs to be supplemented by a moral virtues