Click a section of the pie chart to jump to it.
Maybe if I research the philosophy that lines up with my beliefs on morality, I might find some nice little box that I can fit my way of thinking into. That's what I thought at first. Turns out it's pretty complex. And you don't have time to hear all about it. So I've tried to break down my entire worldview and belief systems into a tiny little webpage that no one will read.
I like it: Morality doesn't need to come from God or anything supernatural. Humans are apes capable of empathy, reason, cooperation, and a lot of stuff that other animals aren't. I prioritize minimizing unnecessary suffering. I like to think science informs my moral reasoning, but science can't tell me what is "right" and "wrong."
But I don't love it, because... Honestly, I don't have a huge disagreement with Secular Humanism. The problem is that it doesn't tell you enough. It gives you a pretty good idea of where I think morality comes from and some general ideas about what matters, but it doesn't tell you what to do when two good ideas conflict. Two secular humanists can agree that morality doesn't require God and still disagree about a whole lot of stuff.
That's where all this other crap comes in.
I like it: There isn't one magic rule that solves every moral problem. Consequences matter. Intentions matter. Rights matter. Consent matters. Character matters. Relationships matter. Context matters. Sometimes they all point in the same direction, which is nice. Sometimes they don't, which is why philosophy books are so damn long.
But I don't love it, because... If everything matters, you still have to decide what matters more. I'm not completely neutral about that. Unnecessary suffering gets a lot of weight from me. So do basic rights and consent. Ethical Pluralism describes the pile of stuff I'm weighing pretty well, but it doesn't necessarily tell me how to weigh the pile.
I like it: Context matters. A lot. "He lied." Okay... about what? Why? To whom? What happened because of it? "He killed somebody." That's obviously a little more concerning, but I still want to know whether we're talking about murder, self-defense, war, euthanasia, or somebody accidentally dropping a piano out a window. The category alone doesn't tell me everything I need to know.
But I don't love it, because... I'm apparently not willing to throw out general principles completely. I have some pretty stubborn ones. Unnecessary suffering is bad. Consent matters. Human rights matter. Innocent people shouldn't be treated as disposable. Context can change how I apply those principles, but I'm not starting every moral question from absolute zero.
I like it: Do whatever weird crap you want as long as you're not hurting anybody. That's obviously oversimplified, but it's pretty close to my default position. Something being disgusting, offensive, unusual, sinful, or unpopular isn't enough by itself to make me want to stop somebody else from doing it.
But I don't love it, because... "Harm" gets complicated really fast. Things we call personal choices can affect spouses, children, neighbors, finances, communities, and people who never agreed to participate. I also think society sometimes has to make rules based on predictable harm rather than pretending every situation exists in a vacuum. So I'm a big fan of the Harm Principle right up until everybody starts arguing about what counts as harm.
I like it: Rights are rights, man. If taking something away from 5% of the population makes the other 95% happier, that doesn't automatically make it okay. Consent matters too. Five percent of people voluntarily giving something up is morally very different from the other 95% taking it from them. Competent adults should have a pretty enormous amount of authority over their own lives.
But I don't love it, because... Rights can collide. Autonomy can collide with somebody else's autonomy. And people aren't always capable of meaningful consent. Children are the obvious example. There are also situations where exercising one person's freedom creates serious harm for somebody else. So "they have a right" or "they consented" can be extremely important without automatically ending the conversation.
I like it: I don't think the universe assigned me a mission. I'm a smart ape that showed up here for a little while and eventually won't be here anymore. Biology gave me some basic programming: survive, reproduce, eat things, don't get eaten by things. Everything beyond that is meaning I get to make for myself. Family, music, relationships, creating things, whatever.
But I don't love it, because... I think biology and being a social animal explain more of us than some versions of existentialism seem interested in emphasizing. I didn't invent every value I have from scratch. I inherited a brain, instincts, a family, a culture, and millions of years of evolution. I create meaning, sure, but I didn't exactly start with a blank hard drive.
I like it: "What kind of person do I want to be?" is a question I actually ask myself. If I notice that I'm being lazy, maybe I go ride my bike. If I'm not giving my kids enough attention, maybe I put my phone down and talk to them. If I'm talking too much and listening too little, I try shutting up for a minute. I want to be somebody I'd actually want to hang out with.
But I don't love it, because... I don't think I'm morally required to spend my entire life turning myself into Super John. Self-improvement is something I want, not an infinite moral debt I owe the universe. Also, being a "good person" isn't enough by itself. A person with wonderful character can still make a terrible decision and hurt somebody. What actually happens still matters.
I like it: What actually happens matters. A lot. If breaking a rule prevents something horrible from happening to an innocent person, I'm probably breaking the rule. Human life matters more to me than property. Good intentions are nice, but if my well-intentioned decision gets somebody hurt, I don't get to wave my intentions around like a Get Out of Jail Free card.
But I don't love it, because... A good enough outcome doesn't justify absolutely anything. If making 95 people happier requires screwing over five innocent people, I'm not automatically onboard just because the happiness spreadsheet came out positive. Rights, consent, intentions, and the way we got to the outcome matter too. I'm willing to do some moral math. I just don't think morality is only math.
I like it: Reality gets a vote. If I've spent my whole life believing that something is good and reliable evidence shows that it actually hurts people, I should probably reconsider it. "We've always done it this way" is not a particularly impressive argument. Rules should have reasons for existing, and when the facts change, I'm allowed to change my mind.
But I don't love it, because... Something working doesn't automatically make it moral. The most efficient solution could violate somebody's rights, remove their autonomy, or cause suffering I'm not willing to accept. Science can tell me what happens when I do something. It can't make the value judgment that the result was worth doing.
I like it: Relationships change what I owe people. I don't owe a random stranger everything I owe my wife or my kids. I voluntarily signed up for marriage and parenthood, and that came with responsibilities. Sometimes that means sacrifice and compromise. That's what I signed up for. I got what I paid for.
But I don't love it, because... Being in a relationship with somebody doesn't give them unlimited ownership of me. Obligations should exist alongside care, respect, and some degree of reciprocity. A promise matters, but if keeping that promise becomes pointlessly destructive and the other person cares more about enforcing it than they care about me, eventually we're going to have to renegotiate the deal.
I like it: I can imagine morality starting with something much simpler than commandments carved into stone: "Don't bash me over the head with that rock and I won't bash you over the head with mine." Social animals have reasons to cooperate. Eventually we turn those expectations into customs, rules, laws, rights, and giant documents nobody reads before clicking "I Agree."
But I don't love it, because... Society can be wrong. Something doesn't become moral just because everybody agreed to it, and something doesn't become immoral just because the government made it illegal. If the social contract tells me I have to participate in something I believe is seriously wrong, my conscience doesn't disappear because everybody else signed the paperwork.
I like it: There isn't much point in fighting reality after reality has already won. If something happened and I can't undo it, I eventually have to deal with the world that actually exists instead of the one I wish existed. Humor, reframing, and finding whatever tiny positive thing might be hiding in a disaster can make life more survivable. Sometimes the universe introduces you to minimalism by flooding your basement.
But I don't love it, because... Sometimes things just suck. If I lose somebody I love, I don't think being permanently changed by that loss means I failed some emotional test. Grief can exist because something mattered. Finding a bright side is useful when it actually helps me cope; I don't think I'm a better person because I successfully talked myself into feeling less. Acceptance means accepting that something happened. It doesn't require me to pretend it wasn't terrible.
Apparently the fancy answer is something like Secular Humanist Ethical Pluralist.
The less fancy answer is that I think morality is something humans came up with while trying to figure out how a bunch of smart, emotional, occasionally ridiculous apes can live together without making each other's lives completely miserable.
I care a lot about unnecessary suffering, human rights, consent, autonomy, intentions, and consequences. I think context matters. I think rules are useful, but I care about why the rule exists. I think science can tell us a tremendous amount about reality without being able to tell us what reality ought to be. I think society needs rules, but society can also be wrong.
And, maybe most importantly, I try to apply my morality most strictly to myself. Just because I think something is wrong doesn't automatically mean I get to stop everybody else from doing it. If you're not hurting anybody, there's a pretty good chance my opinion about your weird life choices doesn't matter.
So that's my nice little philosophical box.
It's apparently a pretty big box.