For most people, evaluating right and wrong depends on one of two approaches to moral principles. Relative moral principles suggest that ethical judgments can vary based on cultural norms and specific situations, like veganism or abortion. Meanwhile, absolute moral principles assert that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of context: as the “golden rule,” the scripture verse I have lived by since it was taught to me, says, “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you” (Matthew 7:12)

To understand Christianity’s contentions about being a good person, and gaining entry into heaven, it’s important to note the role virtue ethics plays in moral philosophy. Focusing on the character and virtues of individuals, rather than solely on their actions, virtue ethics emphasizes the development of moral identity and good character traits. In this framework, voluntary actions alone are praiseworthy or blameworthy. In practice, this means the capacity to look at a situation, acknowledge what about it may be ‘right’ or “wrong,” and then decide what type of person one wants to be, what type of actions one can support, in that situation. Virtue is also defined as a middle ground between extremes of excess and deficiency, though this can vary from person to person. For example, one person's standards, minimums or extremes may be lower or higher than another person's, making it possible for them and everyone to enact equal levels of good deeds in various and personally fitting ways. 

Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals provides another absolutist framework. Kant founded morality on the categorical imperative, which states that one should act only according to rules that could become universal laws. Moral actions therefore stem from duty and respect for the moral law. In emphasizing the importance of rational, autonomous decision-making in ethics, this imperative encourages individuals to act based on reason and “good will”: "A good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes … it is good through its willing alone- that is, good in itself.” Hence, Kantian “rule followers,” i.e. absolutists, adhere strictly to establish moral guidelines.

Such judgment, however, gains complexity through Plato’s idea that "to know the good is to do the good.” Plato implies that wrongdoing stems from ignorance rather than malice, and that that knowledge and virtue are intrinsically linked. But not all individuals have access to this knowledge, let alone the freedom to act upon it: the modern world has been structured systematically to keep certain groups of people from reaching certain levels of knowledge and worldly awareness. Indeed, the phrase "no ethical consumption under capitalism" suggests that in a capitalist system, where profit is prioritized, it's nearly impossible to make purchasing decisions that don't contribute to some form of exploitation or harm, whether it's to workers, the environment, or communities. In this context, even well-intentioned choices can contribute to unfair labor practices or environmental degradation. 

One person's standards, minimums or extremes may be lower or higher than another person's, making it possible for them and everyone to enact equal levels of good deeds in various and personally fitting ways.

Jonathan Dancy’s Theory of Moral Particularism challenges absolutist judgment of a person's moral decisions. Dancy argues that moral judgment should be made on a case-by-case basis; taking all specific details in context into account, Darcy argues, involves “the selection of appropriate responses to subtly different situations.” In other words, Dancy’s perspective suggests that the environs and length of a person’s life might unfairly influence their moral evaluation. If modern individuals are constantly accumulating "negative points," to use the language of The Good Place, their ethical imbalance is due to systemic issues beyond their control. Because of these systemic influences, one's choices on a day to day basis can become extremely limited, further complicating the moral evaluation of their actions. 

Meanwhile, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics centers on eudaimonia, or happiness, as the ultimate goal of human existence. This relativist perspective suggests that individuals often prioritize their own well-being and desires in their pursuit of the highest good. Unlike Kant’s “rule follower,” the Aristotelian “happiness maker" operates under a utilitarian ideology, justifying actions based on their potential to create happiness. Indeed, Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia goes beyond fleeting pleasure, towards a desire to fulfill our potential and contribute to communal well-being. As he formally puts it, “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.” In practical terms, this means that ethical choices aren’t just about following rules, but about cultivating habits and actions that lead to a flourishing life for ourselves and those around us.  

In his influential book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically, Singer further explores utilitarian reasoning, through the concept of effective altruism. This is based on the idea that we should use our resources to do the most good possible. Introducing readers to people who have restructured their lives according to these principles, the book demonstrates how living altruistically can lead to greater personal fulfillment. His argument calls for readers to support organizations that can prove they will do more overall good with their money or time than other options that benefit less people in the long run. Ultimately, then, effective altruism means maximizing the good we can do by focusing on measurable, high-impact interventions, often driven by utilitarian reasoning. 

Singer builds his arguments on secular grounds, without consideration of any religious authority or divine command. Instead, he relies on reason and evidence to determine what actions will do the most good, making his ideas accessible regardless of one’s religious background. This sets his work apart from moral systems that are grounded in spiritual or religious traditions, highlighting a distinctively modern, pragmatic approach to ethics. 

All these approaches have strengths and limitations. Absolutist approaches, like Kantian ethics, provide a strong emphasis on duty, universal principles, and respect for the inherent dignity of all individuals, ensuring fairness and consistency in moral judgments. However, its rigidity can sometimes disregard the nuances of specific situations and the importance of emotions. On the other hand, relativist approaches, like Aristotelian ethics, emphasize the cultivation of virtue and the pursuit of a flourishing life, promoting personal growth and community well-being. Still, their reliance on individual character can be subjective and may not provide clear guidance in complex moral dilemmas. Moreover, an explicitly non-religious approach like Singer’s can end up prioritizing short-term, quantifiable outcomes over actual systemic change. “Effective altruism” neglects personal attachments, or broader ethical considerations like economic and environmental effects, arguably reducing morality to cold calculation.  

How do we integrate these diverse philosophical perspectives to balance personal well-being with a broader ethical consciousness? Might a more nuanced synthesis of ethical considerations, taking into account the complexities of free will, systemic influences, and individual circumstances, and even more intricate moral frameworks, achieve a spiritual status worthy of “The Good Place”?

For the third part of Kai's journey, go to Part III, "A Paradise of Authenticity; or, Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."