There is no such thing as absolute morality.

There is a prevailing view that some things are by definition “good” while others are “evil”. No matter the context.

This distinction is completely relative. We’re coming at this from a very specific viewpoint of humans who live on earth in the 21st century.

For example, society is slowly coming to a view that it is immoral to mistreat animals while producing food.

That the #1 priority is to treat animals well, even if it means that we don’t use them as a source of protein.

This is all well and good. But, what if you are on an island with a cow and the cow is the only source of food left? Do you starve to death or eat the cow?

And then if you eat the cow, is it better that you survived to live a full life? Or would it have been better if you both died on that island before you were rescued.

Its better because your value to the world is higher than that of the cow.

Everything must be looked at through its value to the world. The entities, processes, materials with the higher value will survive longer. And this will lead to a better world.

^Day 229/90 215 Words

I write daily on personal effectiveness and behavioral economics. Follow me to get a new thought every day.

Like what you read? Give Konrad Kopczynski a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.