# Ichthus77’s “At the End of the Day”

**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ichthus77-s-at-the-end-of-the-day/85652
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [June 15, 2026, 6:38am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ichthus77-s-at-the-end-of-the-day/85652 "2026-06-15T06:38:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/user_avatar/www.ilovephilosophy.com/ichthus77/32/446_2.png) [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2026, 8:40am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ichthus77-s-at-the-end-of-the-day/85652/4 "2026-06-18T08:40:17Z")

</div>

…at the end or beginning of the day, I’m gonna keep returning to this:

> [@I've been refining an argument — ethics isn't a human invention. It's what a finite universe with conscious agents structurally requires](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/39):
>
> you’re _re_purposing it rather than giving it one from scratch—otherwise it could’ve been suitable (fitting) for _no_ purpose.

> [@I've been refining an argument — ethics isn't a human invention. It's what a finite universe with conscious agents structurally requires](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/99):
>
> I would say that ethics are necessary for humans who have volition but not omniscience.

If ethics is not true/descriptive of an always-good being, a) it isn’t true, and b) that being isn’t good/God…& knows nothing.

> [@Ethical Search Algorithm](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ethical-search-algorithm/85660/1):
>
> I bet you have the capability to suss out, in any given circumstance or scenario, which of all the absolutes that cultures have agreed upon throughout history is the greater or most “in play” absolute because it recognizes rather than violates the consent-respecting consent of as many stakeholders of the given scenario (so the golden rule would be **the greatest absolute of absolutes** ). This capability or algorithm or whatever it would be called could only tell you which decisions would be excluded as less moral than the least immoral (most moral/ethical) decision—the only one we are therefore obligated to. In terms of which decisions are possible that affirm consent, there would be no limit—so you would have to come with exact decisions in mind in order to weigh them against each other—and that’s fine, because we are only obligated as far as we are aware of the possibilities. We cannot be obligated to possibilities we cannot even conceive. But, I bet you also have the capability of showing us possibilities we haven’t even considered which pivot the golden rule better than the ones we have conceived. And if that is the case, are we not obligated to ask for your input? …not just yours, but **anyone who may have insight** into any given ethical scenario?

…_any_ being who has insight, not just _between_ persons, but _within_ persons…

> [@I've been refining an argument — ethics isn't a human invention. It's what a finite universe with conscious agents structurally requires](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/99):
>
> they are relational

> [@I've been refining an argument — ethics isn't a human invention. It's what a finite universe with conscious agents structurally requires](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ive-been-refining-an-argument-ethics-isnt-a-human-invention-its-what-a-finite-universe-with-conscious-agents-structurally-requires/85404/101):
>
> “humiculture” (ethics, morality) does the same with regard to humans

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/ichthus77-s-at-the-end-of-the-day/85652)._