A lot of what you say resonates with me. Perhaps something that has helped me greatly may be of use to you.

Know and accept what you can control. It is the only way to be happy, fulfilled, and passionate. When I was younger, I wanted to change the world. As I got older, I started to be depressed (for many reasons) but this one thing really changed me long term. An individual has no control over their peers, strangers, or even family. They may be able to sway some opinion but other people in the end have full control of their own path. The only person you can control is yourself.

This idea may seem disheartening at first, but it is the truth. Learning how to work with this limitation is a sign of great self-awareness.

An example for me: I cannot as an individual save the planet. Can I take some action to do so? Yes. Can I speak to others about my concerns? Yes. Does that matter? Yes. Knowing that is the extent of what I can do is imperative and it sounds like though you understand some of the concept of the limitations of your influence and control, you have not yet accepted it.

Limitations of influence and control are not a burden, but rather is a freedom! Imagine trying to bear the weight of the world! Knowing and accepting that one individual is limited in control is a relief as worrying about others you cannot influence is draining and only will drag you down.

I hope these thoughts are helpful. It took me years to start to actually put these thoughts into practice and I have been a lot happier since. Therapy can also help if you have a good person to speak with.

there’s no good or bad people, it’s much more nuanced than that. no one fits into just one box at all times and places.

just do your best, it’s all we can do.

Are you contributing to the climate crisis because you want poor people in developing nations to suffer from it? Then, yes, you’re a bad person.

However, if your contribution is simply a side effect of trying to live a normal life, then you’re not. Intentions matter. The idea of living in a cave, eating sticks and leaves, would be a disproportionate sacrifice compared to the actual harm your actions are causing. A small donation to an effective organization fighting the climate crisis is likely to have a greater positive impact than going out of your way to eliminate all behavior that contributes to carbon emissions and pollution. What feels like making an impact and what actually does can often be entirely different things.

Last time I checked, donating to an organization that buys bed nets and sends them to Africa is the most effective way to use your money to help others. That way, your actions will have a tangible impact on the world. On the other hand, selling your car and stopping consumption altogether makes no difference, no matter how righteous it might feel.

I think your moral system is wrong.

It doesn’t describe a person, it describes an ideal. There’s no room for a person in there - no one can ever meet that standard. Can you describe a good person in that system?

Morality has to be relative, at least to some degree. Humans must destroy living things to exist - we can only survive from eating life. We also require shelter, community, even entertainment - there’re more and less harmful options for this, but there are no consequence free options. A system that says survival is immoral isn’t a useful system - it leads to supervillain level conclusions if you play it all out

You have to put humans in context.

I share similar values - the base of my moral code is “if everyone lived like me, the world would quickly approach perfection”. Take what you need, give what you can. I don’t travel much, but I do when it’s important. I try to limit my consumption, but I ask if it is worth what it would bring me

I think you’re still developing your moral code, which I think is a sign of a good person - you’ve just gotten stuck midway. There’s two paths I think you should look down

First, you can put everything on a scale - do my actions add more than I take from the world? If you devoted your life to improving the system or helping people, you’ll have to contribute more to the mechanisms killing the world to empower yourself to do more. That includes entertainment and pleasure required to keep yourself in your best condition - but not more.

Second, you can make it all relative. You can’t live a zero carbon life, but you can reduce your impact. You can continuously improve as you learn and gain experience, and stay on the side of progress

These aren’t answers - neither of those approaches are absolutely valid, and I don’t have a perfect moral code. You have to continue to question and strive to be better, but you can’t beat yourself up over what you haven’t learned yet or the consequences of picking the least bad option

In my mind, humans are just animals. Humans do what we’re conditioned to do almost all the time. Most humans never awaken beyond that. Even then, most have moments of being more before dropping back into a talking animal. And even they generally get to a certain point and stop. It’s not fair to judge them from your perspective, you have to judge them from theirs

Keep striving to be better, keep questioning yourself, and even when you slow down never stop growing - that’s what makes for a truly good person in my book

This sounds like you are somehow trying to take the full responsibility for the circumstances you were forced into. It is impossible to blame one person for all the things that are not working, looking and being “as they should”. The same goes for “we all failed”. It is much more nuanced than that.

The reverse perspective is more productive, every action and even smallest nudge into the right direction counts towards much bigger pile… of dust… on the endless desert… Yet still, this is how mesmerizing dunes are formed. It’s not about the amount of grains, how long it took, it’s about all the persisting processes.