Interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
In my opinion, the question of morality and 'Good and Evil' can be split into stages. First, we might ask, 'is there any kind of objective and omnipresent 'truth' that can dictate what is good and what is evil?' For me, that question is not possible to answer under the circumstances of our existence as finite (in time and space) beings. We can not know, with some kind of 'empirical certainty' many answers to 'big' questions. We are left with the necesity to make assumptions to further our arguments and answer these questions. I'm not arguing that we can not theorize, entertain and even believe that we know these answers, we are free to do as we please. But I do think that some humility is 'healthy' and probably even beneficial, we can just say, 'I don't know...but I still like to talk and ponder about it'. In the words of Socrates, somebody that loved to argue about everything "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing."
So... for us to continue (if we want) we have to make a necessary assumption. Or, 'Yes, there is an objective and omnipresent truth that dictates what is good and what is evil.' or, 'No, there is no such truth out there.' Under this predicament, just my opinion, if we assume 'Yes there is' the argument is closed to any further investigation and we can continue with many statements that would be considered 'true' following this assumption. I would say that it is easy and dare I say, lazy, to assume that. So let's assume the later, let's say 'No there isn't', then we have some room for further questions. Like, where does the idea of morality come from? The only answer to that would be that we made it up. (If we don't answer that, then we are back to stage one. Round and round in circles.)
So... Why and how did we make up this system of morality? For me, a rational argument would be, that it is beneficial for all members of any group of beings to agree, through consensus, on a specific set of rules to govern their lives. If that is true, then I think that it's safe to argue that we are talking about fluid systems of morality that are subjected to change and evolution that mirrors the changes and evolution of the consensus of a given group.
Somebody mentioned the Spartans, which I think is a good example to illustrate this subjectivity. The Spartan where a group of human beings that, through consensus and under the particular circumstances that existed at the time, decided that every member, for the benefit of the whole group, has to be a strong warrior. Thus any child born with a perceived defect must be killed for the benefit of the group because he or she would not be able to survive on its own and be a strong warrior that was valuable for them. I'm not arguing that it's a 'nice' thing to do, under our modern day consensus we have agreed on different sets of rules that would render such action 'barbaric' to say the least. But following the assumption that there is no ultimate 'truth' to dictate morality we have to accept that they are free to choose the rules that will govern their lives. And just the fact that the Spartan way of life does not exist anymore, proves that these systems of morality can and do change with time.
This is just my opinion again, but I feel more honest when I don't assume that I can answer the first stage of this question. And I decide that I feel more comfortable with myself to continue thinking about the question by assuming that consensus dictates the morality of a given group. And if that is the case then it is interesting to think about the forces that dictate the consensus of a group. I won't go into that now. I just want to leave it to that and just ask the question to the reader, 'what are the forces that dictate consensus in our modern societies and how will the 'blockchain' change the dynamics of those forces which are at play to reach consensus?'