I do agree that morality is simple and universal, unlike ethics, or culture.
However, everything simple is complicated by inconvenient truths.
I know it is not necessarily evil to chop off arms, for example. Many years ago in Alaska, a Japanese tourist enjoying some snowmobiling in the interior (I can only imagine the joy he felt at the wide open untrammeled wilderness he screamed through on the rented conveyance) got in an accident.
His arm was crushed, and trapped in the treads of the snowmobile. The temperature was well below freezing, and he would soon freeze to death without help.
He chewed his arm off, and lived.
Not an easy thing, nor something everyone could do, or even realize was necessary.
But it was a good thing, and the right thing to do.
Thanks!
Semantic confusion and obfuscation to argue that. Obviously a doctor an save your life by doing some harm, like cutting off a limb to save your life. That was obviously not what I was saying.
Well, yes and no. It's simple and easy to have a standard. It's not always easy to apply that standard.
That's really the only point I was trying to make.
A single potential bad, and a single potential good are fairly obvious usually. When there's a shooter hiding in a crowd of people, is it a good idea to shoot the shooter, or is it too risky?
RL makes even simple ideas less simple in practice.
Barking up the wrong tree -- Broken bot.