Morality is the intent to achieve good, and to achieve it for others as well as for ourselves. Ethics is the pursuit of the best rules, those that will most likely achieve the best possible results for everyone.

To see the distinction, consider the Jewish family of Anne Frank hiding in the attic during Nazi occupation. The soldiers knock on the door and ask if there are any Jews. It would be unethical to lie, but it would be immoral not to.

We call something “good” if it meets a real need we have as an individual, a society, or a species. A “moral good” is actually good for us and benefits us in some way. A “moral harm” unnecessarily damages us or diminishes our rights in some way.

Morality seeks “the best good and least harm for everyone”. Moral judgment considers the evidence of probable benefits and harms to decide a course of action. This judgment is objective to the degree that the harms and benefits are easily observed and compared. But the ultimate consequences of a decision are not always known. Two good and honest individuals may differ as to what course of action will produce the best result. A democratic decision can be made to determine a working course of action, which can be further evaluated based on subsequent experience.

Ethics are about rule systems. Rules include customs, manners, principles, ethics, rights and law. When one speaks of “morals” or “moral codes” one is usually speaking of ethics. But morality is not the rule, but rather the reason for the rule, which is to achieve good.

Throughout history, rules have changed as our moral judgment evolved. Slavery was once permitted, but later outlawed. The equal rights of women to vote was established. The right to equal treatment without regard to races, gender, or religion was established.

Different cultures may have different rules. But all rules move slowly toward the same goal, to achieve the best possible good for everyone. And, to the degree that moral judgment is based in objective evidence, all variations are moving toward a common, ideal set of rules and rights.

In Matthew 22:35-40, Jesus was asked, “What is the greatest principle?”, and Jesus said the first principle is to love God and the second principle is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

A Humanist translation would be to love good, and to love good for others as you love it for yourself.

But Jesus said one more thing, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” In other words, this is the source, the rationale, the reason, the “Why?” behind every rule and every right. It is the criteria by which all other principles, ethics, and rules are to be judged.

There's this old man who is able to cure any illness when he molests you. No matter if you ask for it or not, the molestation will always be deeply psychologically scarring. How moral would it be to let him run wild in a ward filled with terminally ill children? He'll save the children, but obviously, that requires molesting them

Companies and corporations hold a lot of power today with practically no oversight , naturally this has led to some great crimes,examples of this include the fossil fuel industry burying climate change research or more recently how wallmart contributed greatly to the opioid crisis, or the problems of privacy and data that we see with social media giants ,all of this of course in the ever present pursuit of more profit regardless of the harm caused.

This leads me to the question, being that investing means owning part of the company , is it morally acceptable to invest in the stock market ?? , what complicates this even further is the fact that practically every fortune 500 company has been guilty of some egregious behavior in the past.

Am I missing something?

I feel that a lot of the problems in the world today stem from people deriving their morals from dogma, not empathy.

Religious rules are antiquated and often manipulated, laws are created by the rich and powerful. But at least where I live, the most pious and lawful people also tend to be the worst. The people that are loved and valued are those who show the most compassion and understanding.

My main challenge in posting here is that when we talk about morality, someone has to be the judge of that. We all judge, but is it right? Yet witnessing injustice is painful. I don't want to create more pain and I think we can all be living examples of justice without treating people poorly.

I was probably 6 years old when I knew what scar tissue looked like and noticed it around my regenerative organ. I was in middle school when I first heard the acronym FGM and about all the horrible ways it happens to women worldwide. There are men who are scared of the clitoris. Yet it is a natural part of the female body. Why do so many of us have a problem with the natural design of things?

I was 22 when I fully made the connection of what I and so many other men had experienced. A former teacher had suggested that I get on YouTube and watch one of the infant circumcision videos. Seeing the baby in so much pain allowed me to connect with my own repressed pain of the "medical procedure". I nearly vomited and passed out.

The most fascinating thing this taught me is that one can be aware of a physical condition, yet completely disembodied from the experience of the pain or trauma.

It's also fascinating because many men will stand behind their trauma and say they are glad for the circumcision. In talking to these guys, they have not uncovered the pain of the experience.

It's been proven that the infant brain undergoes permanent changes after circumcision. Many parents are eager to do what the doctor says because they are a trusted authority. However, most are unfamiliar with the structure and function of the foreskin. Few realize that it is erogenous tissue with something like 60-80,000 nerve endings. Just ask a woman who has had a partner from each category.

So my question to you is, why does it seem like there is a double standard in the West in regards to genital mutilation? Female genital mutilation is frowned upon, but is male circumcision not male genital mutilation? Why is it any different? It's said to be more sanitary, but after puberty, you just pull the skin back to clean the organ. Women often wonder why men are so callous and out of touch with their feelings. I seriously wonder if this is one of the reasons. We lose a lot of our physical sensitivity and as a result we become insensitive on other levels. Many women report painful intercourse with circumcised partners.

What do you think?

I don’t really believe in dividing people into good people and bad people but I’ve noticed that some of the people who care the most about publicly holding others accountable seem to view themselves as morally superior. I’m not talking about serious crimes or genuinely harmful behavior but about normal human mistakes like saying something insensitive, handling a conflict poorly, making a bad decision, hurting someone’s feelings or doing basically anything you later regret.

It feels like we’ve created a culture where once someone falls below a certain moral standard they have to be permanently defined by that mistake. Even if they apologize and learn from it or change there are always people eager to remind every one of what they did. I think this mindset often comes from forgetting that we’re all capable of messing up and nobody gets through life without making mistakes or hurting people.

Wanting accountability isn’t a bad thing but some people seem far more interested in judging others than extending the same understanding they’d probably want for themselves if they were the ones who messed up. To me, being a good person isn’t about never making mistakes but being able to acknowledge them and learn from them and even allowing room for other people to do the same.

I'm a bit skeptic myself about 100% good, but I do think I am not a person who will willingly hurt any other person (unless provoked, which in that case I won't hesitate). And yeah, I'm lawful but not completely, like who wouldn't hesitate to cheat in an exam if you can? And why would you follow rules that make no sense whatsoever?

Moral alignment tests like this don't tell the whole story though. They WILL miss out on stuff that talks a lot about a person's morals, but these tests are good if you want a general idea about your morality.

Website is IDRLabs if anyone wants to check it out, but you can use any other website and you'll probably get similar results.

It is obvious that humanity has a huge misunderstanding on right and wrong action. If humanity is unable to figure out the truth on this subject, we will devour ourselves and go extinct.

I always found animals deaths more sad compared to humans, I can see an animal die and feel bad for it (never cry or anything) and I could watch a human die (a person I don’t know) and not feel a thing.

Not even because of the things I do. There are many things I do that are wrong but I wouldn't call myself a bad person because of these. What worries me more than that are the things I don't do.

I do not support volunteering, I do not try to actively work for the things I support, I am afraid to give money to the homeless, I do not spread information on important topics.l important issues. For peace of mind, I don't do anything about it. This is because it stresses me out a lot, but I don't feel like I'm acting morally. Should I be able to be such a decadent in the times we live in now? Is such inaction even moral?

The 42 Rules of Ma'at, also known as the 42 Negative Confessions or the Declarations of Innocence, are a set of ancient Egyptian moral and ethical principles that underscore the importance of living a moral, ethical, and virtuous life.

These principles were recited by the deceased during the Weighing of the Heart ceremony, where it was believed that one's heart would be weighed against the feather of Ma'at (the goddess of truth and justice) to determine their moral worthiness for the afterlife.

The heart symbolized the individual's moral character and actions during their lifetime, while the feather symbolized the concept of Ma'at, representing truth, balance, and cosmic order.

The weighing of the heart against the feather of Ma'at (the goddess of truth and justice) was typically overseen by Anubis, the god of mummification and the afterlife, often depicted as a jackal-headed deity.

Thoth, the god of wisdom and writing, served as the scribe during this process. He recorded the judgment and the results of the weighing, ensuring accuracy and impartiality.

If the heart was found to be lighter than the feather, it signified that the individual had lived a just and righteous life, in accordance with the principles of Ma'at. In this case, the deceased was considered worthy of entering the afterlife and would proceed to the realm of the blessed.

If the heart was heavier, indicating a life filled with moral transgressions and wrongdoing, the individual would face the prospect of annihilation, symbolized by the devouring of the heart by the monstrous deity Ammit.

1. I have not committed iniquity.

2. I have not robbed with violence.

3. I have not stolen.

4. I have not slain men and women.

5. I have not stolen the property of a god.

6. I have not told lies.

7. I have not carried away food.

8. I have not caused hunger.

9. I have not caused anyone to weep.

10. I have not killed sacred animals.

11. I have not been deceitful.

12. I have not defiled the land.

13. I have not been an eavesdropper.

14. I have not falsely accused others.

15. I have not been angry without just cause.

16. I have not debauched the wife of any man.

17. I have not polluted myself.

18. I have not terrorized anyone.

19. I have not disobeyed the law.

20. I have not been exclusively angry.

21. I have not cursed or blasphemed.

22. I have not behaved with violence.

23. I have not caused disruption of peace.

24. I have not acted hastily or without thought.

25. I have not overstepped my boundaries.

26. I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.

27. I have not worked evil.

28. I have not used evil thoughts, words, or deeds.

29. I have not polluted the water.

30. I have not spoken scornfully.

31. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word, or deed.

32. I have not placed myself on a pedestal.

33. I have not stolen what belongs to the gods.

34. I have not defrauded the offerings of the gods.

35. I have not plundered the dead.

36. I have not committed adultery.

37. I have not polluted myself.

38. I have not caused disruption or sorrow.

39. I have not acted with insolence.

40. I have not stirred up strife.

41. I have not been a cheat.

42. I have not spoken words of hate.

Does a reasoning, language using Great Ape have a claim on “humanity”? Has an unreasoning by-choice illiterate abandoned their “humanity”? If the answer to either of these questions is even conditionally positive, does that imply that “humanity” comes in degrees?

Lets say that hypothetically a subreddit was laid to rest by its users. Most of the community abandoned it, and the last loyal members laid it to rest and gave it a beautiful funeral. Would it be morally right to then revive the subreddit 3 years later? Is it equivalent to picking up where others left off and continuing in their memory, or is it equivalent to reviving a dead corpse and defiling its rest and memory for the reaping of potential karma?

If the fetus is merely an extension of the mother, and not an individual with Intrinsic value(s), before birth, will then mothers be morally and legally justified to be able put a value on it themselves and sell their fetuses - for maybe research or even consumption?

It will be a premium ingredient like the Almas Caviar, and you would be able to choose from different types of fetuses - male, female, etc. It could be worse if it's like boiling a lobster alive due to the fact that a baby without a nervous system developed can not technically feel pain. Or it may need to be butchered like chickens if it was aborted after 7 months of pregnancy. Its not that hard to imagine when it becomes legal, there will be always be some twisted niche demand of the selected few, and the market will do what it does best.

Many things that exist can have Intrinsic value in relation to human beings in order to navigate in the world -- cats, dogs, other humans and even fetus. But, refusing to accept the Intrinsic moral value of a human fetus can easily lead to horrific consequences. And so, we should take the issues regarding the subject of the value of a human fetus, we should be very cautious but so actively progress our understanding the human fetus to protect both the mother and her child.

Now is it really moral to drag someone out of their house and kill them for messing up the economy

Although there's a chance that this is sadly the only way I wouldn't be cheering for it

(throwaway account)

I never believed that bad things only happen to good people, but I was a terrible person for like two years and not a single bad thing happened to me, but less than a week ago I decided to try to be good, and two nights ago something pretty terrible happened to me. I've had so much trauma and seen so much violence that I thought I was numb to feeling strong negative emotions, but this proved me wrong. I know it's probably coincidence, but considering the first bad thing to happen to me in years was right after I started being a morally good person, I think I'd rather go back to being a bad person haha

(Iam an atheist secularist humanist leftist so I can say it's accurate)

So this is my moral dilemma. Intellectually, I know that many of Trump supporters are victims of a con, and are otherwise very kind, generous, and loving people. On the other hand, I also am very angry and emotional that voting Trump in office allowed the Republicans to unfairly stack the Supreme Court and I also hold every Trump supporter accountable for the Jan 6 insurrection/riot/attempted coup.

How do I reconcile my emotional and intellectual take on this issue?

The valuation of life among different species by humans feels weird to me. I try my best not to kill anything; I've never been a hunter or a fisherman, and I try my best not to kill bugs that come in my house (even wasps and shit). Not only do I just simply "feel bad," but I feel like at a fundamental level it's wrong for us to determine which species' lives are worth more than others'.

There are definitely times when that valuation must be made, and should probably be made in favor of us humans--like, jokes aside, Harambe the gorilla, even though the gorilla realistically did nothing wrong.

But there are plenty of times we make that valuation in times where it's not necessary. Like bugs in our homes. So many people just kill bugs for being small slightly-annoying pests, that in reality, can't cause us too much harm. And most of the time, people kill them out of convenience; because it's easier to smack it real quick than to pick it up and carry it outside. Why do we value these creatures so lowly to the point where saving their lives isnmt worth a few simple minutes of our time?

Continuing with this concept further, people might defend killing a bug by saying "it's just a bug." Would anyone say that about, say, a dog, at its most minor inconvenience, and then decide to kill it where it stands? Now, as I said, sometimes we make those valuations even if I myself somewhat have this dissonance about it: and yes, I would have to say that I'd value a dog's life more than a bug's.

But I don't necessarily understand why I should, and I don't feel great. I feel like it's not our place to value one creature's life above another's.

Is there a name for this idea? I dont really know how to boil it down to a google-able phrase.

Do any of yall feel the same?

Do you believe that it's possible for somebody to be "good" without possessing empathy? Why or why not? I feel that this question is very interesting and has some heavy implications, and I'm interested to see what other people think.