Any solution is a nice solution depending on your frame of reference. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad without defining the acceptable and unacceptable effects.
1. There are a set of things that are nearly objectively true across nearly all cultures. For example, random killing for selfish purposes is not ok.
2. I'm not a moral relativist, in two senses. First, the "weak" sense: I would prefer to live in some moral systems more than others. Second, in "nearly-strong" sense: some moral systems are 'nearly' objectively better than others (see point above). (Note: my definitions are imprecise; still working on how to square them with existing philosophical writings.)
3. Even for people that evaluate the morality of something according to its effects (consequentialists), there is considerable room to debate the relevant time frame.
There is an implied frame of reference that requires the continued existence of humans.
Any solution that violates this boundary condition is "objectively bad", that is, cultures that follow this solution disappear and thus lose the evolution game.
1. There are a set of things that are nearly objectively true across nearly all cultures. For example, random killing for selfish purposes is not ok.
2. I'm not a moral relativist, in two senses. First, the "weak" sense: I would prefer to live in some moral systems more than others. Second, in "nearly-strong" sense: some moral systems are 'nearly' objectively better than others (see point above). (Note: my definitions are imprecise; still working on how to square them with existing philosophical writings.)
3. Even for people that evaluate the morality of something according to its effects (consequentialists), there is considerable room to debate the relevant time frame.