Alonzo Fyfe

I believe that this is a very worthy enterprise, and I am pleased to see that the project did not die the untimely death that at first seemed inevitable.

Some comments:

(1) I have long had a problem with ethical codes that contained empty circularity.

This is a problem that I have had with the 10 Commandments.

To illustrate what I mean, take the commandment:

Thou shalt not murder.

Well, what is murder? Murder is wrongful killing. And wrongful killing is 'that type of killing that thou ought not (shalt not) do'.

So, what this commandment actually says is:

Thou shalt not do that type of killing that thou shalt not do.

Which really does not say anything. Which is really why nobody can disagree with it. It is empty. It tells us nothing about what we 'shalt' or 'shalt not' do.

The same problem applies to 'honor thy mother and thy father.'

Or 'thou shalt not steal.'

So, I would look for and try to eliminate wording that is circularly empty.

However, the more specific you get, the more chance that somebody will disagree with you. Nobody can disagree with you if you say "you should always do that which you should always do." So, such a code can never have any critics.

Alonzo Fyfe

After giving my general criticism, I thought I would take a stab at the specific statements.

1. I am a sentient human being who does not believe in a supernatural God(s).

No complaints -- except I would have a weak preference for getting rid of the word 'human.' It serves no useful purpose. I actually hold that a valid moral code is one that applies to all people regardless of species -- just in case there happens to be other specieses.

(Okay, I know that's not a word, but it sounds nifty.)


2. I accept full responsibility for my words and actions...or silence and inaction.

Technically, the only actions that count as "my actions" are those that I take responsibility for. One denies responsibility precisely by denying that they are "my actions" -- by asserting that the case was not "me" but some outside influence.


3. I will make every effort to maintain the highest personal and professional ethical standards.

I'm afraid that this is empty.


4. I honor and defend the Constitution of the United States and all Amendments thereto, although I view myself as a law abiding citizen of the world.

I would have trouble with this if, for example, we were to adopt an amendment that said that all atheists were to be rounded up and locked in concentration camps because we cannot trust their moral degeneracy out in public.

I do believe that all people should act on a presumption that the laws are just and to obey the law (in this case, obey the Constitution). And, in this case, I think that there is a strong presumption to be made. But, if it is possible to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the law is unjust, that at some point one must put right above the law and take action.

Or, as it says in the Declaration of Independent

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

The Constitution with its present amendments is nowhere near to violating this principle. But I cannot guarantee that the same can be said of all future amendments.

5. I will become as well educated as circumstances permit.

6. I will seek the verifiable evidence prior to offering speculations.

These sound good.

7. I will do no harm to others unless in self-defense.

Define "harm", define "self-defense", and ask "what about the defense of another?"

8. I will not knowingly lie or perjure myself.

Simply add "except in self-defense."

If I can harm another in self-defense, then is one also not justified in lying in self-defense? I have $20 hidden in my sock. A thief sticks a knife against my throat. "Is that all your money?" Yes, I will lie. If asked to swear that I have turned over my money, I would perjure myself.

9. I will not knowingly defame others or allow it to be done without challenge.

I think this is already covered under item 8.


10. I will respect myself and others.

What does "respect myself" mean?


11. I will conduct my life with integrity, dignity and compassion.

Define "integrity". This word comes from the same root as the word "integer" and it means "to act in unity" or, "act in accordance with one's nature." In the words of Shakespear, "to thy own self be true." But what if one's nature is that of a cold-hearted rapist?

Define "dignity." Dignity is typically a culturally-relative criterion -- what is dignified is whatever the relevant members of society say is dignified. But, what if that society is the slave-owning South or NAZI Germany or the Taliban's Afghanistan?


12. I will defend the right to express individual conscience regardless of how much it might personally offend me.

If I may, I would simply like to see this one reworded. "I will not allow mere offense to be taken as a legitimate reason to interfere with the expressions of any individual."

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

CaptainDave

Alonzo, has anyone ever told you that you can be a real pain in the ass? Never mind; don't answer that. Good point!

Maybe we could call this Alonzo's Razor. Ethical codes that contain empty circularity are useless.

Let's apply it to the seven codes which I arrived at (with considerable help).

1. Respecting and cherishing every individual's right to life and liberty - except when they seek to deprive others of the same.

This one fails. (Damn! It was my favorite!) There is no definition of what those rights are.

2. Accepting full responsibility for one's words and actions...or silence and inaction.

I see no problem here. "The Devil made me do it", is not valid.

3. Conducting oneself with integrity.

This one fails because there is no definition of "integrity."

4. Being guided by fact over fiction.

I don't see anything wrong with this except, maybe, it's wording.

5. Never put your passions over your principles.

Passes with flying colors.

6. Promote and practice kindness and compassion where ever and when ever possible.

It's hard to argue with this.

7. Improving oneself and society within the means available.

No problem here.

So we're left with modifying items 1 and 3. The problem is that these items are crucial - but to include the language necessary to define them according to Alonzo's Razor would result in a document far too wordy to be useful.

I don't know that there is a solution to this other than - compromise.

There is no way that we (or anyone) can compose a perfect set of ethical guidelines for everyone to follow that is accurate 100% of the time. Nor do I believe that that is neccesary.

I work as a captain of scuba/snorkel boats in the Florida Keys. My passengers frequently express concerns about sharks. It's not a valid concern. Think about it! How could we stay in business if our customers were frequently (or even occasionaly) attacked by sharks? We answer the concern with the following logic: You don't have to swim faster than the shark (an impossibility), you just need to swim faster than your buddy!

We don't need a perfect moral code (impossible), we just need one better than our opposition.

We can do better than the 10Cs real easy! I think we just did it!

Buffman

"Integrity"

Hit TAB by mistake and off this went. Moderators please delete.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Buffman

This is great. We have some very bright, talented and realistic people posting to these various forums. The more folks who take a stab at this the stronger and more acceptable any list should become. Any and all comments are most welcome, especially if they contain the reasoning/ justification for the stated position/ conclusion...whether pro or con.

"Integrity": Here are a few synonyms from my copy of "The Oxford Thesaurus:American Edition."

1. Honesty
2. Probity
3. Veracity
4. Uprightness
5. Honor
6. Rectitude
7. Principle
8. Morality
9. Goodness
10. Trustworthiness
11. Decency
12. Virtue
13. Incorruptibility
14. Righteousness

How about "unimpeachable character?"

Buffman

GaryP

The "ass" was hilarious. However, I can honestly say that I have no problem with many of the issues surfaced by the fundamentalists. Some of their criticisms of our institutional systems have considerable merit. Each of their complaints should be examined on the basis of content, not on the basis of the originating person/organization.

CaptainDave

I changed # 4 because I felt that the word "passion" should only be used in one item rather than two in order to give it the most power/influence.

Buffman

ybnormal

However, someone should point out, that any organized attempt by Atheists to lay out ways of conducting one's life, could by default, soften, if not remove, the seemingly important argument that Atheists have no worldview... you did say, "all freethinkers"...

I can't see how such a Code, at least against its participants, would not enforce xian claims that Atheism is a competing belief system...

I began a response to your thoughtful post and got diarrhea of the fingers. So I parked it away in order to give it more thought. So now I guess my response could be boiled down to this:

"IMHO, Atheism is a competing belief system. However, it isn't a competing RELIGIOUS belief system. Additionally, every Atheist does have a worldview...even if it is only a PERSONAL worldview."

However, with your thought in mind, I attempted to satisfy it by adding that "Supported by" line entry under my make believe title. That would give each individual/organization an opportunity to sign on to the list rather than claiming that it was only one person's/group's worldview. It is much like all the money solicitations we get in the mail. The cover pages almost invariably have a list of individuals/organizations along the left-hand border who are endorsing the specific content of the letter/solicitation.

Finally, I really don't care what the fundamentalists do with any finalized list. They are going to do what they do regardless. I rather offer them something concrete than have them continue to make things up with which to propagandize the public. It is like Stephen T-B said in his post. If they are against this list, then they are against the positive moral values found in their own 10 Commandments and Holy Bible.

The whole point is, "You damn well betcha I have principles and values which help me to guide my personal and social life...and they are more relevant than those on your ancient list of supernatural Commandments." (Period!)

Albion

Oh, they won't be against the list, they'll just be against the notion that atheists really mean it.

BTW, I know this was supposed to be the American Atheist Code of Conduct, but we aren't all Americans. I follow the laws here but I don't honour the constitution. It's your constitution, not mine. This seems a bit exclusionary.

Buffman

Albion

Have you read(CaptainDave) 18/2:58 PM and (Buffman) 19/4:26 PM?

What would you like to see included in such a potential list that would best represent your concerns/positions?

Albion

As I said - my main concern is that the list is as inclusive as possible, and I think that means trying to avoid making it country-specific. If I'd had any other suggestions, I'd have made them - I'm not shy!