Sarpedon

In other threads other people and myself have brought up the idea that atheistic ethics should be logical and, if possible, scientific. We all know that in logic you must begin with accepted premises or assumptions. For my personal code of ethics I use:

All people are equal
All people may choose.

Of course, my esteemed colleagues pointed out that neither of these statements are true. And of course, they are not. So now, my friends, I would like to have a thread that may help to form a foundation of ethics for the godless.

Glory

Premise: All people feel.

I have always found that the Golden rule(hackneyed as that sounds) works very well as guideline for personal ethics.

Glory

Sarpedon

good!
now, we need a second one, to make a syllogism. (at least one)

MadMordigan

I believe the silver rule is more important than the golden rule.

"Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

Longbow

I don't think it should be scientific. If anything it should be mathematical. But, it shouldn't even be that way because the issue is always some borderline case, which makes it as it should be: philosophical.

Your approach is bad. You are trying to set-up some basic premise that one must adhere to for moral philosophy, but you are not making it nearly indisputable enough. What you must do is actually start with something like the nature of a moral statement and then see what is essential to any moral statement. Whatever you can develop from there would be essential enough to morality to provide a foundation for it. Just positing things like "All people are equal," is erally more of a moral statement, itself. What you are probably really saying is that "All people ought to be treated equally."

Perhaps that is inherent in the very meaning of any moral discussion. To determine something like this you have to be analyzing the language and concepts of the subject. Some might argue that it really boils down to analyzing the language, although I contend that there is a nontrivial conceptual nature to it beyond just that of what the language entails.

Ought Naught

A psychologist that I visited a while back had what he called the Golden Rule PLUS:
Do unto others as they would like to have done unto them.

Murphy

Language always seems to be the biggest problems in philosophical discussions. Words have too many meanings and shades of meanings. For exapmle, as Longbow pointed out, when one says all people are equal, what is probably meant is that all people should be treated equally. But that still doesn't mean anything. Should all people be treated equally in that they are all given exactly the same opportunities and rights? If that's true, people with any sort of disability end up SOL. But if people should be treated equally in a relative fashon, how does one determine equality? Where is the line between accomodations to help maintain equality and special privillages that being abused. I would have to agree with the idea that the golden rule is the best premise. People shouldn't necessarily be treated equally because that is such a vague ideal, but rather you should treat people the way you would want to be treated in their situation, whatever that may be.

tronvillain

Well, the premises and foundations of my ethical system are found in my emotions and knowledge of the world.

MadMordigan

Do unto others as they would like to have done unto them.

So you are saying everytime I want a blowjob, it should be morally imperative for you to give me one?

Longbow

I might add that the answer will not show up on a post in this forum. They are very sophisticated problems that require a great deal of sophisticated treatment to come up with an answer that can even marginally withstand scrutiny. To make an analogy, I used to draw a lot when I was a teenager. After awhile I got pretty good. There were a lot of pictures that I would sketch, perhaps spending several hours on and think they were really damn good! Other people would look at them and remark at how good they were. But after a couple of weeks I would look at it again and it just didn't look that good. In truth, maybe better than average or even much better than average, but not really good.

And just to drive the point home of just how good the weren't, I saw a pencil drawing on sale once that looked like a black and white photograph which showed just how good it can get and which dwarfed any vanishingly small amount of skill I might have aspired to having. And yet, I was still probably much better than average. If you imagine your ideas as being like works of art and withstanding the test of time and public scrutiny, neither of which most people's ideas really have to do very much of, how do they fair? Don't think that you will be able to just jot down the answer as I have seen people demand so many times:

"Well if you think morality is so objective, Mr Braniac, then why don't you just tell me right now the universal solution to all moral dilemmas. You can't? Well, there you go! Loser!"

I think morality is objective, but I don't think it is simple.