Morality: Episode II, the clone attack...

Morality and ethics are a very interesting thing. From a moral point of view, if I go outside naked, I will be an idiot, disturbing those around me. But if I kill people in war, they will call me a soldier. If I kill many of them, I will be a brave soldier. If I lead people to disaster, I will be a charismatic leader. None of these actions are condemned by morality, even if I deceive many people, I will not be a scumbag, but a talented con artist. I used to think that I acted only out of fear of the law, not of judges or punishment, but specifically of the law. But then you start to understand that the law is a complication of simple things; what can be said in two words, the law stretches out into books. So, what should a person rely on if morality is ambiguous and the law is imperfect? Principles remain, which everyone should have: these are what Eastern philosophers teach: justice, loyalty, virtue... there are only about 5-6 of them, but they can completely replace both the law and morality.

Yes, I often think about this too... is it coming from within, from the heart, or is it just a desire to appear better? ...and can the first case be pure, or is it always mixed with the second?

Goodness always builds a bridge to pride, and few can escape it; only the personal example of another person can help here. But there is another side: cowardly people often belittle the merits of others. Those who do good deeds sincerely are often called show-offs, con artists, idiots, dark personalities, anything to justify their own inaction.