MollyMac

I wouldn't attribute the moral code I try to live by to religion at all. My guiding principle is 'do as you would be done by'. I don't know if any religion shares that principle but as it makes no reference to any supernatural power or superstitious nonsense, I see it as fundamental secular humanist idea and not a religious one.

mike_decock

I call it situational morality.

In every situation, I have to choose between what is harmful or beneficial to myself or to others (bodily, emotionally or monetarily). I try to rationally weigh both the short term and long term consequences of my choices in terms of how harmful and how beneficial they will be. If I choose the least harmful, most beneficial option for myself as well as others, then it is the "moral" choice to make.

I think that's a purely secular moral code and it differs very little from most religious people. I just don't call harmful choices "sin" or "evil", I just call them stupid or irresponsible.

-Mike...

lpetrich

Bees in a hive do not indiscriminately sting each other.

Wolves in a pack do not indiscriminately hunt each other.

Being "moral" comes from living in groups.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): The Golden Rule--or one of its many variations. No deity necessary.

ex-xian

Kant's cardinal rule of ethics was "Treat all men as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to an end." I believe that this follows from the golden rule. Said golden rule did not originate with the Bible.

A logician I knew believed that the golden rule was the way to go because it was logical and rational to treat others the way you would like to be treated. Another maxim that I like says, "All other things being equal, it is better to suffer evil than to do evil."

I did some research into this while taking a class in epistemology. Basically, I think that ethical rules from based on the needs of specific socio-cultural groups. When two culturals intersect, ideally, a dialectic type dynamic takes place where the moral rules that would be the most beneficial to the new community should emerge.

philechat

Confucius (who was born several hundred years before Christ)had the "negative" version of golden rule: "Do not treat other as you would not like yourselves treated". The Golden rule in my opinion smacks of evangelism--while Confucius' version is more about preventing harm.

I do not subscribe to either--I like virtue ethics and pragmatism somewhat better, and I do not believe in an universal moral law.

ex-xian

I believe in what I culturally contingent absolute moral codes. Basically, every community will develop written unwritten rules that govern their way of life. But they have no bearing on the morals of other, seperated communities.

philechat

Cultural relativism, therefore? I am not a cultural relativist, due to several problems that are inherent in this system:

1) Cultures are not constant entities. They modify and change with time, and what was considered moral at one time might become immoral at another.

2) In our world the cultures frequently crash with one another, and many people can no longer be identified only with one cultural community. What if one belongs to two or more communities, with conflicting moral codes? Should a person change from one time to another to fit the requirements of different communities?

3) Are the reformers and rebels bad under this system? Could this system of morality become another "appeal to majority"? Would this make atheists bad because the majority in the United States (and its neighborhoods) believed in the Christian religion?

4) Could one culture criticize the practice of another culture, or is it up to the culture to change on its own? And how should we treat "outcasts" of another community?

ex-xian

What I'm advocating isn't cultural relatvism, per se. Are you familiar with the work of Alisdiar McIntyre (sp ?)? His works influenced my way of thinking about this. But in my post previous to the one you quoted I addressed much of your concerns.

Particularly, the clash of two cultures usually leads to the suppressing of one in favor of the other. But ideally, the two should interact in a dialectic type manner until a new, blended moral code develops.

philechat

Yes, but the problem remains---most culture crashes are not merely crash of two cultures, and culture is not a stable entity. Many people in our time can no longer associate themselves with only one (or two) communities, and even within a culture there are "sub-cultures" everywhere. The codes may be overarching, almost universal ("thou shalt not murder") or trivial (such as dress code). And the idea of "culture change" and "the treatments of rebels" are yet not addressed. I also wonder if this idea would lead to "appeal to majority", instead of forming genuinely beneficial moral codes for all communities involved.

But I will check your book out.