r/Morality

Is morality something created by humans, or is there some divine or objective moral order to the universe? For example, killing a baby feels obviously wrong — but is it wrong because of an objective moral truth, or just because of the moral framework we happen to live in? To illustrate this, imagine a world full of serial killers — in that world, their shared moral framework would make killing normal and acceptable. So how do we determine which morality is objectively correct? Another example is homosexuality — someone with a traditional religious framework would say it's objectively wrong, and they'd be just as confident in that as they are about killing babies being wrong. Meanwhile, someone from a more progressive background would say homosexuality is completely fine. Both sides believe their morality is the correct one. So if everyone thinks their own moral framework is the right one, how can morality be objective? And some things do seem to shift over time — things that were considered wrong in the past are now accepted, and vice versa. So does that mean morality is fluid and culturally constructed, or are there some foundational moral truths that remain constant regardless of culture or time?

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've been thinking about different approaches people might take toward morality and helping others, and I'm curious how other people would judge the following hypothetical individuals.

Assume all five witness a violent assault or rape occurring. They are all physically capable of calling for help, and none of them are the perpetrator.

Person A

Person A feels little or no compassion toward the victim and may not personally care what happens to them. However, they believe they have a moral duty to help, so they call for help and do what they can within reason because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Person B

Person B does nothing. They do not intervene or call for help because they believe strangers are not their responsibility. They generally care only about their own happiness and well-being. Outside of this, they are peaceful, artistic, law-abiding, healthy, physically attractive, soft-spoken, and often inspire or comfort others through their art and personality, though they do so unintentionally and primarily for their own satisfaction.

Person C

Person C would normally help strangers and even risk their own safety for them. However, in this case, the victim previously caused them significant emotional and physical trauma. Because of this history, Person C refuses to help and believes the victim deserves what is happening.

Person D

Person D personally feels sympathy for the victim and dislikes what is happening. However, they belong to a religious or ideological belief system that teaches they should not assist people outside their group. Because of this belief, they do nothing.

Person E

Person E intervenes and stops the assault. However, rather than using only the force necessary to protect the victim, they brutally kill the attacker because they believe the attacker is evil and beyond redemption. They then care for the victim's injuries, call for medical help, and leave the scene to avoid arrest.

My questions are:

1. Which of these people do you consider the most moral?
2. Which do you consider the least moral?
3. Which would you trust the most?
4. Which would you trust the least?
5. Which would you consider the most dangerous?
6. Which would you most want as a friend, neighbor, or family member?
7. Do your answers change if you focus on motivations rather than outcomes?

I'm interested in hearing how people approach this from different philosophical, religious, psychological, or personal perspectives.