Ethics are not necessarily an unchanging constant. It can change and evolve, with people and society. We experience this now. Not only do we have the ever-changing rules of political correctness, or the regularly replaced technology that gets promoted as the new savior of environment or climate and must therefore be bought by everybody. There is also a more long-term development observable, wich I personally consider to be more meaningful than the highly dynamic trends in the political and social field, which seem to be more targeted towards distraction and subsidies for the economy.
Not so long ago, the political and social life was dominated by small or larger groups. There were noble houses and royal houses, the world was divided in principalities and kingdoms. Those were usually inherited by future generations. Many agricultural or craft businesses were also continued by children of the owner. The role and status of a person was closely tied to the family or group that he was born into. It was partially inadequate to intermingle, there were deep divisions between some groups. For example when different confessions were involved. Ethics were focused on the group, we can call it group ethics. An example is the presentation of Italian mafia families that we see in movies. The family is the group, and the well-being of the family is more important than the well-being of the individual. And the well-being of an opposing family is at best irrelevant, in the worst case it is actively sabotaged. Even today some countries shape their politics around the values of this group ethics.
In the aftermath of the two world wars, nationalism and patriotism have become very unpopular concepts in Germany, and this has not changed until this day. The people became the population instead (Volk -> Bevölkerung) to create a verbal distance to the idea of a group united by common values. One happens to live in the same country, pays taxes to Bonn or Berlin and not Paris, London or Moscow. A strong identification with citizenship is considered weird, dangerous, a reason for exclusion. Such a bond to a group is not appreciated, especially when it includes matters of origin or religious confession. This weakening of group ethics has given way to a quicker development of an ethical concept focused on the individual person, which we can call individual ethics. The individual person becomes free of the fetters of the group, is no longer grouped based on ancestry or origin. This is generally to be welcomed, because the time of group ethics is over. Mankind must evolve further.
We detach from our surroundings and family that we were born into, and independently go our own way through life. Everyone should get the same education, choose and learn a random profession of choice and get comparable chances to achieve power and wealth. It shall no longer depend on group membership what a person can achieve in life. The group does not matter any longer, is irrelevant, and there are only individuals in the world. Everyone must figure out what to do and where to go. We take care of our own business, and especially in cities we often do not even know the names of the inhabitants two houses down the street. We are not responsible for the city that we live in, we do not feel like a citizen, but like a stranger who lives where the best job is offered or where the housing cost is affordable. We broke free from the group and turned into lone fighters. This bothers many and there is a certain longing for fellowship and community.
However, it would be a regression to fall back into group ethics. We want to move forward and not backwards. With the development of individual ethics, which was made possible by the strong egoism of modern humanity, we have left group ethics behind. However, purely egoistic behavior is also already obsolete and does not live up to the demands we have today. That is why we are confronted with ideas like selfless action, doing things for others and not for us. Such ideas are right, if we understand them correctly. But they can easily result in misunderstandings and frustration. It is not reasonable to return to group ethics – we must evolve individual ethics further towards a new concept that we can name universal ethics.
So what should universal ethics look like? The short answer is that we should remember our existence as an individual, and beyond that recognize that we are also a part of a universal cosmos that we live in and that we are responsible for. We as an individual seize a relationship with the world. We no longer participate in world events as an obedient group member, and are no longer in the mentality of a lone wolf who only cares about the events and consequences that immediately fall back on him, but are aware of our connection with all that exists. We develop an interest to act in accordance with the entire universe. When you read this you might object that our current environment does not exactly encourage such behavior. There are still many incentives for egoistic actions on the expense of others. We will not change that over night. But every single one of us who strives towards implementing universal ethics and begins to live them actively will participate to a change of what is considered a successful and admirable way of living. From an egoists point of view it may appear disadvantageous to be an early adopter of universal ethics. But it does enrich the life of those who do it, as well as the entire world.