As a philosophy major who was never particularly interested in ethics, I certainly don't think it's trivial. If you trivial as in "clearly obvious" then I cert

As a philosophy major who was never particularly interested in ethics, I certainly don't think it's trivial. If you trivial as in "clearly obvious" then I certainly disagree. But let me try and charitably interpret your position. I do think that in practice the different ethical systems don't produce wildly different outcomes, from utilitarianism to deontology to even virtue ethics. Of course, in the realm of thought experiments they can be widely different. But in the real world, the hardest thing is to be moral (i.e. do the right thing) rather than defining your ethics (having a clear code). In practice, the "evil"/conflict/strive in the world I see is due to selfishness or amorality, not disagreements between utilitarians and kantians. Is this what you're getting at? That the distinctions between the different ethical systems collapse into similar practical situations? That being a "good person" is more important than the particular ethical code you follow? (That's my take, basically). I'll also say that I found meta-ethics incredibly illuminating. It essentially builds up a language to discuss different ethical systems and makes conversations around them way easier. Big up on consciousness and philosophy of mind though. I also found philosophy of science fascinating. And shoutout to Hobbes! He would have loved HN, he was such a contrarian.