system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why does contemporary work in ethics within the Analytic tradition seem so far removed from the ethical problems that each of us face in our lives?

I have taken a number of graduate courses in contemporary metaethics. I can't for the life of me give a damn about the discussion being had about global hedonist theories of Crisp. But when I read the classics in ethics like Kant, Mill, or Aristotle, I absolutely love it. I even love reading Spinoza's Ethics, or Hume. Why is it that the ethical theories that derive from these great thinkers seem so far removed from their original sources? For me, when I read Kant's moral theory I get the sense of the importance that ethics has for our overall conception of what it means to be human with limitations and hopes and ideals. Contemporary writings, for me at least, lack that gravity and just appear as pedantic and unimportant. Am I just thinking about things wrong, or have I been given the wrong material to read?

&#x200B;

What do you recommend I read to engage with contemporary ethics in a more sincere way?

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

Edit: To clarify the "problems that each of us face" part: When I read Kant, or Spinoza, or Aristotle, I deeply want to change myself to be a more virtuous, ethical, and happier person. But when I read about whether moral claims are truth apt... well I feel not that...
gpt
Analytic philosophers publish all sorts of stuff about the ethical problems that we confront in our daily lives.

The issue is that you took a course on meta-ethics, but your interests are clearly in applied and normative ethics.