What is your 'moral code', or 'set of standards'?

[slideyfoot]

I've been discussing this at length over on the other forum I keep mentioning, so was interested to know what fellow atheists (not that I'm barring theists from the discussion) think about this issue. Do you have a 'moral code', or whatever term you might want to use for that set of standards, and if so, what is it based on?

I've tried to make the options as fair as possible (it could, of course, be a combination of various sources, which is why I added 'primarily', and some might overlap - I'm no expert on ethics or philosophy, so apologies to anyone who is and might cringe at the mistakes...), but if I've failed, then there is always 'other'.

Please feel free to post in detail about your 'moral code.' I'll be sharing my perspective, if this thread actually interests anyone aside from me.

[DutchCrunch]

I have come to realise that very many standard moral codes don't do it for me. Some are too free and non-binding, others are too binding. So I've had to come up with my own. My moral code is a medieval one, based on honor, loyalty, but not necessarily truth.

Truth is great, if it can be permitted, but often times it is better to lie. Somehow truth has become the most important virtue these days, something I object too. However, contrary to most moral codes, lying is not an item. I have a much bigger problem with the total lack of respect (self respect and for others) these days.

Nothing is important anymore these days. This has allowed for little groups of loud-mouths who consider themselves incredibly smart to rise up, like the hippies, cults and extremists. I know these have always existed, but somehow they can have a large impact on society as a whole. I believe this is because, in the past, there was an unspoken code of respect for one's neighbors and their possessions, a feeling of honor and loyalty towards one's friends and allies.

All this seems to not count for anything anymore. So my personal moral code is what some might considered old fashioned, and it even has some religious aspects, but it is sustainable. Even today.

[Jez]

I don't even know if I even have a moral code to be honest. I've read quite a few moral theories and none of them quite do it for me; there isn't one that leaps out and says 'Yes! This is the one to follow!' Tis quite disheartening.

On the other hand, I know what I consider to be right and wrong, even if these are somewhat murky concepts which are hard to explain. *shrugs* I get along.

[Blossom]

My moral code is just Englishness, I get really offended when people don't go by it. They should bring duels back into fashion

[Admiral Valdemar]

Humanist here, though utilitarianism factors into it I guess too (son of an engineer and that's their code).

[slideyfoot]

Ok, thats four - I'll add mine in too. Interesting that most people here seem to plump for the same option I would, 'primarily on my own conclusions'; I would have expected at least a few to go for the philosophical school option.

I'm not religious. Therefore, when it comes to moral standards, I don't view morality as coming from a god, or indeed as necessarily religious.

To leave aside arguments about theology and jurisprudence I'm certainly not qualified to comment upon, I'll put my perspective in very basic terms. I operate on the principle that if someone does something which does not harm anyone else, then they should be able to continue doing so. The reason this is very basic is because there are all sorts of problems when you start to expand beyond that - how do you define harm? Direct or indirect? Is it merely physical, or would you also include psychological? If the latter, how far does that go? Could a homophobic individual claim that the behaviour of homosexuals caused him 'psychological damage'?

The only 'Christian' moral I have strong views upon is that of infidelity. I'd agree that this is something I cannot abide, though my reasoning - I think - is rational. If one member of a monogamous relationship wishes to sleep with someone outside of that relationship, then they should end the relationship first. To do anything else is cowardly; I am appalled that people can proceed with their previous relationship after such a betrayal of trust, fully aware of what they've done. Excuses such as man is 'naturally polygamous' or whatever hold no water; if you enter into a monogamous relationship, you have stated a commitment to monogamy. If you no longer wish to be monogamous with that person, then the relationship should come to an end before a new one is begun, or alternately, you find like-minded individuals to be polygamous with.

Sexism (and from a comparable perspective, racism) is also, in my opinion, not a matter of moral standards in the Christian sense, but practical implications. If a woman is restricted to one social role, such as only suitable for childbearing and childrearing (or simply as being 'lesser' than a man, be that in terms of capability or inherent ‘value’), then this limits her earning power in the marketplace. It also prevents her from accomplishing personal goals she might have; for example, if she wants to become a competitive mixed martial arts fighter, this could be adversely affected by attitudes that women should not be involved in combat (again, this relates back to a restriction of possible ‘roles’). Income can also be affected if a woman is not valued to the same degree as a man (figures on disparity in wage rates between genders indicate that such devaluation continues to be the case); this directly impacts on her quality of life and ability to care for any dependants. That is why I get aggravated by sexist media; it causes restriction of opportunities by reinforcing a conception that men are of more importance/value etc than women. Although I'm sure as its a long-held belief I've had since about the age of 10 (modified over time, of course), there may be non-rational elements underneath any justification.

[Will]

To leave aside arguments about theology and jurisprudence I'm certainly not qualified to comment upon, I'll put my perspective in very basic terms. I operate on the principle that if someone does something which does not harm anyone else, then they should be able to continue doing so.

I'm pretty sure that's actually classical Satanism.

[hubert]

To leave aside arguments about theology and jurisprudence I'm certainly not qualified to comment upon, I'll put my perspective in very basic terms. I operate on the principle that if someone does something which does not harm anyone else, then they should be able to continue doing so.

I'm pretty sure that's actually classical Satanism.

Or hedonism.

As for my personal ethical system, I'd have to say that after much introspection and thought....I have none. I operate on moral instinct, a set of values which I have received through both nature and nurture. It does not seem possible to me that there is an objective morality, merely the confused nihilistic shuffle of life ending in the pit of oblivion which is death. (Sorry to sound so pessimistic )

Of course, there might be a subjective morality (whatever that might be), one which emphasized the "common good" of all life. But what is good? Is pleasure good and pain evil (as in the aforementioned hedonism)? If you think so, then a Brave New World would be about right for you. What about life and death? The best way to end pain in the world would be through mass euthanization. But of course this would be evil. So is life good and death evil? Or perhaps "intelligent" life is good, and it should be made prevalent on Planet Earth (regardless of the survival of other lifeforms). Or perhaps nature is good, and people should wish to be chained forever to the endless cycle of birth and death that constitutes the natural world. But what is "natural", anyway. Is not the present state of the world natural? Isn't human domination of the planet natural? Surely it was by nature that humans evolved to our present state, was it not? Another possible solution to this dilemma would be to invent a kind of hierarchy in which all lifeforms strived to reach the top, in which all tried to be "the best that they could be". This is akin to Nietzsche's ideas concerning power and the Ubermensch. Of course this also has its share of problems. (i.e. what is the "best" one can be? Should the weak/lazy be removed from society? Obviously not, only someone like Hitler would dare to think about such a thing.)

So, as of now I opt for the "moral codes are arbitrary" option.

[Admiral Valdemar]

hubert: I would argue you are, like me, a secular humanist if you don't believe in any arbitrary theological set of rules, or some other form of morality. If you respect other humans and know that murder harms a person, that stealing or raping or by inaction, allowing those to happen is detrimental to society, that'd be humanism. I wouldn't say these were arbitrary either, since these altruistic rules have been a part of our species for many, many generations. We are a species that evolved knowing to look out for one another and to respect individuality as well. There may be other species out there that work by similar rules, but even a loving lioness, for instance, will eat her young when starved of food.

[Darragh]

I don't worry about what I am. Humanist, Athiest, Agnostic, Satanist, Blahist. Lots of people thinking it's them that's right.

I'm me. I'm a good person in my eyes. If i had to say which then I come to my own conclusions as to what I see as immoral, flexible morality.

[Jaya]

Heh. As it's said. It's only wrong if you think it's wrong, if you think it's right and everyone else thinks it's wrong then it's only wrong if you get caught.

N.B. not my moral code.

[hubert]

hubert: I would argue you are, like me, a secular humanist if you don't believe in any arbitrary theological set of rules, or some other form of morality. If you respect other humans and know that murder harms a person, that stealing or raping or by inaction, allowing those to happen is detrimental to society, that'd be humanism.

How do you determine what is best for society? Do you mean simply what is best for the propagation of the human race?

I wouldn't say these were arbitrary either, since these altruistic rules have been a part of our species for many, many generations.

These altruistic values have gradually developed to encompass more and more people in society. And what prevents them from encompassing other lifeforms? Why should morality be limited only to humanity and not other species as well?

We are a species that evolved knowing to look out for one another and to respect individuality as well. There may be other species out there that work by similar rules, but even a loving lioness, for instance, will eat her young when starved of food.

Respecting individuality is a new phenomenon that occurs only in relatively developed countries. Do you honestly think that society values individuality over conformity? Conformity is a measure of loyalty, which is of crucial value to any social structure. In any case, humans did not evolve looking out for each other, but only looking out for themselves while obeying the instinct of child-rearing that was essential for their expansion.

[Stargirl]

Oops, I put other, but I mean the one of own conclusions. It's too complicated though and I can hear the pie in the kitchen calling to me....

[David F]

Blimey. And after I've spent so very long fighting it out with Moral Objectivists this past week or so.

I am greatly influenced by the Indiana Jones school of morals - I make it up as I go along. I suppose that, essentially, I go with my conscience, which always seems to be an internalised 'do as you would be done by'. I'd vote that any moral code is arbitary; indeed, most attempts at a moral code I've perused are conscience/personality rationalised.

Does anyone know of a philosopher - or anyone - who has reasoned out an ethics and ended up a different position to where they started?

[slideyfoot]

To leave aside arguments about theology and jurisprudence I'm certainly not qualified to comment upon, I'll put my perspective in very basic terms. I operate on the principle that if someone does something which does not harm anyone else, then they should be able to continue doing so.

I'm pretty sure that's actually classical Satanism.

Interesting - something I should probably read up on, then, though I'm not especially keen on goats or flowy robes and squiggly knives. Though I could learn to like the knives, I suppose.

However, I was under the impression that a Satanist would believe in a certain 'higher power', or at least 'cosmic force'?

[Admiral Valdemar]

How do you determine what is best for society? Do you mean simply what is best for the propagation of the human race?

It can be interpreted that way, though some would say we're prosperous enough as it is. More, the ideals help society maintain a steady state and avoid events that could destabilise such as allowing mass murder, rape and pillaging. Anarchists tend to think we'd do without order and live as we wanted, but there has never been, nor will there ever be, a pure anarchic society where it's every man for himself. We're in this together, so our way of living should be based on helping one another within reason.

These altruistic values have gradually developed to encompass more and more people in society. And what prevents them from encompassing other lifeforms? Why should morality be limited only to humanity and not other species as well?

Nothing. Indeed, we would do well to respect animals more, especially primates that are closer related to us. The fact that our "missing link" is extinct is an unfortunate accident of life, for if we did have such an intermediary exist now, we'd probably have a different take on other supposed "lesser" species. It's bad enough humanity still believes in races as opposed to just the one race we are.

On the flipside of the coin, going too far like PETA or the ALF would be hazardous to society. Putting the life of a dog over that of a human adult, even thinking unemotionally and purely utilitarian like, is folly.

Respecting individuality is a new phenomenon that occurs only in relatively developed countries. Do you honestly think that society values individuality over conformity?

That would depend on what society you're talking of and in what time period. Cultures are different everywhere and some would be more tolerant of the more liberal ideas of, say, sexual orientation than others. The Middle-East, as an example, views women as objects of men, which is not what the West thinks today (although religion did help maintain the belief that women hold no poweror sway over the affairs of man).

Conformity is a measure of loyalty, which is of crucial value to any social structure. In any case, humans did not evolve looking out for each other, but only looking out for themselves while obeying the instinct of child-rearing that was essential for their expansion.

That isn't strictly true. While selfish genes may indeed mean the individual is more important in one way, in another, the furtherment of the species is just as, if not more important. Without a decent sized genepool, your species, and by extension, you die. It is in the best interests of a species like man to work in groups which helps one another as individuals and the species to prosper. Even solo hunters like big cats sometimes work in pairs or pseudo-wolf packs and share rearing cubs and their catches.

[hubert]

How do you determine what is best for society? Do you mean simply what is best for the propagation of the human race?

It can be interpreted that way, though some would say we're prosperous enough as it is. More, the ideals help society maintain a steady state and avoid events that could destabilise such as allowing mass murder, rape and pillaging. Anarchists tend to think we'd do without order and live as we wanted, but there has never been, nor will there ever be, a pure anarchic society where it's every man for himself. We're in this together, so our way of living should be based on helping one another within reason.

I think that the point of anarchy is to establish a society without a ruler, not one without order. In any case, when I said propagation I meant an increase in the population, not in prosperity. If your goal is not the propagation of the human race, what is it? Are you suggesting that anything that is a "steady state" is good? The steadiest state that I can think of can be achieved quite easily with a few hundred nuclear bombs. Of course, if you want an option that retains the society you are trying to protect, I encourage you to seriously consider establishing your own totalitarian regime. And any society is "based on helping one another within reason," the question is: which one is preferable? I guess it is all a matter of what your goals are.

These altruistic values have gradually developed to encompass more and more people in society. And what prevents them from encompassing other lifeforms? Why should morality be limited only to humanity and not other species as well?

Nothing. Indeed, we would do well to respect animals more, especially primates that are closer related to us. The fact that our "missing link" is extinct is an unfortunate accident of life, for if we did have such an intermediary exist now, we'd probably have a different take on other supposed "lesser" species. It's bad enough humanity still believes in races as opposed to just the one race we are.

On the flipside of the coin, going too far like PETA or the ALF would be hazardous to society. Putting the life of a dog over that of a human adult, even thinking unemotionally and purely utilitarian like, is folly.

This all seems nice and good and I agree with what you said, but I doubt your fellow humanists would. Humans have a tendency to expand beyond established boundaries, and it is because of this tendency that we have gone so far in exhausting the earth's resources. How far are you willing to go to preserve animal and plant species while preserving human society? And do you believe that any such established limit will be honored a few thousand years from now?

Respecting individuality is a new phenomenon that occurs only in relatively developed countries. Do you honestly think that society values individuality over conformity?

That would depend on what society you're talking of and in what time period. Cultures are different everywhere and some would be more tolerant of the more liberal ideas of, say, sexual orientation than others. The Middle-East, as an example, views women as objects of men, which is not what the West thinks today (although religion did help maintain the belief that women hold no poweror sway over the affairs of man).

Ideas are tolerated, but not necessarily accepted. But this does not necessarily hold any relevance. Society resides in long-established social norms, and although they change slowly over time, it is always dangerous to go against them.

Conformity is a measure of loyalty, which is of crucial value to any social structure. In any case, humans did not evolve looking out for each other, but only looking out for themselves while obeying the instinct of child-rearing that was essential for their expansion.

That isn't strictly true. While selfish genes may indeed mean the individual is more important in one way, in another, the furtherment of the species is just as, if not more important. Without a decent sized genepool, your species, and by extension, you die. It is in the best interests of a species like man to work in groups which helps one another as individuals and the species to prosper. Even solo hunters like big cats sometimes work in pairs or pseudo-wolf packs and share rearing cubs and their catches.

Exactly, people work together only when it provides some benefit to the individuals involved. Why do you think the economic system based on greed (capitalism) works better than the one based on the common good (communism). Animals of a group work together so that the hunting goes more efficiently. The same is true for humans. Why did the early humans specialize in different jobs? Was it because of a conscious desire for the advancement of human society? No, of course not. It was because of human greed. The baker is the baker not to feed the people of his village, but rather because it is something that he is good at and will thus provide him with the most material wealth (or more importantly, the most food).[/i]

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think that the point of anarchy is to establish a society without a ruler, not one without order. In any case, when I said propagation I meant an increase in the population, not in prosperity. If your goal is not the propagation of the human race, what is it? Are you suggesting that anything that is a "steady state" is good? The steadiest state that I can think of can be achieved quite easily with a few hundred nuclear bombs. Of course, if you want an option that retains the society you are trying to protect, I encourage you to seriously consider establishing your own totalitarian regime. And any society is "based on helping one another within reason," the question is: which one is preferable? I guess it is all a matter of what your goals are.

I have no such goals when it comes to world domination at least (not publically viewable ones anyway). Yes, anarchy does seek to have a society without any rule, but it also, inevitably, turns to chaos. The continent of Africa stands as testament to this.

Total stability wouldn't come from nukes. You'd get a lot less people, but now you have a lot less incentive for people to really be charitable for the most part, depending on how well you ruined their little world.

Prosperity for who we have on the planet at the moment would be the choice, since we don't actively encourage people to go out and breed like rabbits,. We do go out and try and make sure a certain standard of living exists for all, and this has been rising in the first world, and remained quite still in the lesser developed areas, for obvious reasons.

This all seems nice and good and I agree with what you said, but I doubt your fellow humanists would. Humans have a tendency to expand beyond established boundaries, and it is because of this tendency that we have gone so far in exhausting the earth's resources. How far are you willing to go to preserve animal and plant species while preserving human society? And do you believe that any such established limit will be honored a few thousand years from now?

Every species expands beyond its boundaries. If ever there is a period of additional resources such as space and food going untouched, some organism will expand to conquer it and then you have your brief prosperity brought down by the struggle of life again. Humans are no different, but we can restrain ourselves, something we're trying to do against economic mindsets such as rabid consumerism today.

Looking purely at a utilitarian way of going about this, keeping as many plants and animals alive as possible is productive given the benefits in terms of fighting disease, for instance, they offer. It is in our best interests to keep biodiversity high, and while the Average Joe may not care for what a "keystone species" is when he wants his latest designer goods, he soon will when our biosphere collapses as consequence. In anycase, nature is very good at controlling any species that goes too far. HIV is a perfect little tool in keeping our numbers down, at least in the countries where it matters.

Ideas are tolerated, but not necessarily accepted. But this does not necessarily hold any relevance. Society resides in long-established social norms, and although they change slowly over time, it is always dangerous to go against them.

Quite, but that is the risk of defying convention. If we didn't have the free radicals out there to bring on a revolution such as ending slavery, giving women the vote and accepting homosexual partnerships, we'd never progress socially. You will always have bigots, however, society has moved a long way in the last century, or I'd like to think.

Exactly, people work together only when it provides some benefit to the individuals involved. Why do you think the economic system based on greed (capitalism) works better than the one based on the common good (communism). Animals of a group work together so that the hunting goes more efficiently. The same is true for humans. Why did the early humans specialize in different jobs? Was it because of a conscious desire for the advancement of human society? No, of course not. It was because of human greed. The baker is the baker not to feed the people of his village, but rather because it is something that he is good at and will thus provide him with the most material wealth (or more importantly, the most food).[/i]

Actually, there are a number of studies that show ourselves, and our closer cousins have some strange social psychology going on compared to other animals. It's not as cut & dry as simply getting benefits from working together. There are instances when primates such as ourselves do something with no obvious reward in sight. To most creatures, that would be a waste of energy. I'll see if I can dig up one of the studies, but it is disputed that we are only as level, morally speaking, as your average cat or dog.

[Undestined]

I chose Religious Doctrine in the poll, but my beliefs aren't as simple as that, so I'll explain.
I am Roman Catholic, and I use religion as my internal moral arbitrator.
Much of my moral code is based on my own conclusions, but I used religion as a jumping off point, and my conclusions rarely go against Christian teachings.

I don't believe, however, that humans actually need a religious law code to get by. With a few exceptions, people don't generally need to be sat down and told what is right and wrong. However, I disagree with hedonists who claim that, since their actions don't harm anyone, they are not immoral. Although in theory that idea would work, you never know whether or not someone is hurt, so it's better to stick to some sort of code of ethics.

[slideyfoot]

Although in theory that idea would work, you never know whether or not someone is hurt, so it's better to stick to some sort of code of ethics.

Could you give me an example? I'd be interested to know if you have anything specific in mind. Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing, as like I mentioned, this is where the basic premise runs into trouble - the definition of 'harm', and in what circumstances it applies.