You are right that we tend to think of morality as universal. But I think that such a conception of morality is ultimately and inescapably incoherent.
There is nobody to judge a universal morality, other than ourselves (or other sentient beings). But as you said, sentient beings have different (and sometimes competing) preferences. And so it is literally impossible and inconceivable to establish a truly universal morality - as long as there exist more than one sentient being.
So what we are left with, if we still want to use the word "morality", is to think of morality as relative to a specific community or locale. And in the context of a specific community, the members of that community, recognizing their reliance on each other for survival and happiness, can come up with rules that the majority of them can agree to, in order to improve their lives on average.
That's the best possible case for morality. And even then, there will be some winners and losers, and some tyranny of the majority. But it is truly the only possible "morality" that can exist (again, if we even want to use that word).
I've written extensively about this:
- https://medium.com/the-panopticon-publication/morality-is-personal-and-tribal-always-20c8c31f5d29
- https://nebulasaurus.medium.com/do-pride-and-shame-inform-or-confound-moral-discourse-80c0b12e4800
Practically speaking, I think a good "moral" system for a human community should start with the following claims / assumptions:
- Humans don't have a "free" will in an ultimate sense, and so the concept of people "deserving" rewards and punishment is incoherent.
- But humans still want to protect themselves from harm cause by others, so punishment, strictly as a deterrent, remains a coherent concept.
- And so when it comes to "judging" the actions of the participants when harm is done, any "judgment" we might have must be understood strictly as a *prediction* as to how a person's actions and motivations during the harmful event provide *predictive power* for that person to cause future harm.
For the examples in the story, I think we can judge the actions as follows:
- George's decision to drive Alice home is quite invasive and should be discouraged. But given his helpful intent, I think we can reasonably expect that he will take the lesson to heart, and not be invasive in the future. His good intentions are a predictor that he will not make the same mistake in the future.
- George's decision to put Alice in the driver's seat is a bad sign though. That level of deception, and his willingness to let Alice get blamed for the accident, make this probably the worst, and most punishable, decision in the story.
- Alice's inability to stay sober is, of course, somewhat of a liability. But her decision not to drive shows that she is still not really harmful, and not deserving of punishment.
- I'm not particularly concerned about Alistaire's initial lie, because it is such a common thing for people to do, and therefore doesn't pose any unique threat to the community. But he and Denise should have agreed to explain the truth to her son before the lies got out of hand. But society should also recognize that people have a need for romance, such that Alistaire shouldn't have felt any pressure to lie in the first place.
- I don't think there is anything wrong with Harrison to "admit" his happiness - as an expression of honesty. But he also needs to understand his wife's perspective, and his reaction seems quite insensitive to me. As I said, morality is always relative to a community, so any actual repercussions of his insensitivity need to be resolved between the two person commmunity of himself and his wife - and the resultant "morality" that works for them.
