Morality
is this person acting with the intent to improve longitudinal brain chemistry for the maximum number of people?
Points:
intent is important, not result
longitudinal so they focus on long-term good
maximum number, weighted for closeness, self as 1
I think this might also address ignorance, in that educating yourself would be acting in line with the moral principle.
I’m going to bounce it around for a while but it feels nice and clean and - most important - sustainable. It also prioritises the self, and makes me reframe a lot of thought patterns I’m not too happy about*.
Key points:
Your self is weighted as 1, and only truly close relationships can ever reach 1.
If all else is equal, you are morally obliged to improve your own brain chemistry.
Behaving purely in a purely hedonic nature would be longitudinally detrimental, as would be being too disciplined.
You are morally obliged to be nice to yourself, but in the long term; proper self care.
You are morally obliged to be kind to yourself and let mistakes go.
Old moral codes were great for the day, but society and tech were different then. Religion was a societal structure as much as individual. I’ve never liked religion; give me faith. But since none of yours fit, I’ll make my own.
Brain chemistry for all!
* eg1. Finding the dead guy I’m angry about. And that’s justified. Because he was fine to kill himself if that was a step up, but he did so in a way that would knock on to others, if you see what I mean. eg2. Simply beating myself up about stuff.
202506200405