-
@ calvadev⚡️
2025-03-13 00:10:28
I can agree with the experience point but not entirely with the "what" vs "whom" point. I would argue that the "whom" is the universe, and we each exist essentialy as a "emotions" or "thoughts" of that universe (as a rough comparison). Just like we have our own emotions and thoughts (along with actions, etc., which is where the comparison gets more abstract) that make us who we are, we exist as the same thing in relation to the universe. The galaxies, stars, planets, etc. all serve relatively as "organs", "appendages", and the rest of our "body" that don't necessarily have consciousness, but are essential to "our" existence. The morality arises from the fact that we don't want to harm "ourselves" and ultimately want to maximize the "self," but as an imperfect entity, the best that can be done is always to try and iterate on that idea and understanding of what is "right" and "wrong," just as humans do and have done ("ourselves" and "self" here meaning the universe, or more broadly "God").
The "whom" that is looked up to would also have to know where it came from and exist as an absolute, final "truth" in order to actually claim it has some sort of objective moral framework, which simply can't be done, at least at the human level of understanding. I see morality as more of a dynamic system of growth that has some broadly accepted foundations, but it's not absolute. In line with this, I don't claim that the universe is itself a final truth, rather that it is a perfectly imperfect entity that is part of a greater whole, just like humans, and so on ad infinitum.