# Important > [!important]+ > The difficult distinction (I've had) is ethics vs morality. > > To be put in the most simplest way (which I rarely do), Think of it this way: > >Morality is technically defined under a specific framework, so logically, no framework = no morality. > > > >Morality is completely different, but with some shared traits of others, and different under every framework. > > > >>An example of this: > >> > >>Utilitarianism is cold in that it doesn't count for outliers like the disabled/LBGTQ+/Racial minorities, literally any sort of outliers. > >>(These outliers have historically created paradoxes like the [[Public/Hyper-Sanity/Hyper-Framework/Hyper-Sane Paradox/Russells Paradox - HyperSanity 1-1|Russells Paradox - HyperSanity 1-1]]) > >> > >>Which is: _Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?_ > >> > >>>How mine naturally evolved: through rigorous study of outliers and ethical examples (fiction and non fiction), beyond the trolly equation. > > >> > >>>Which is what happens when a set knows it's a set, then acts recursively to account for outliers. (see above link) > >>> > >>>It starts based off pure logic weighing harm of willful action ( [[Education/Psychology/Disorders/BPD/BPD#Axioms|BPD]] Outlier as example). > >>>Then as you go you count for outliers internally (for a higher-order analysis), after chaining the entire [[Causal-Link]] > >>>You recursively apply logic, **the logic is not backwards, you're applying it in reverse-order**, *from end to start*. > >>> > >>>This can be done multiple times depending on the extreme of the outlier, over a period of time after having new insights to apply. > >>> > >>>The paradox that creates growth without complete collapse (still WIP like everything). > >>> > >>>It's a feature, not a bug. > >> [[Public/Hyper-Sanity/Hyper-Framework/What is/WIP-Hyper-Sanity|WIP-Hyper-Sanity]] > [!note]- ONE LARGE FILE - Hyper-Sanity > ![[Public/Hyper-Sanity/Hyper-Framework/What is/WIP-Hyper-Sanity|WIP-Hyper-Sanity]]