Atheistforums.com

Could we create a moral code that transcends religions?

I think so. What about you?

We already did, though most assume it came from some grand wizard, humans have made all moral codes in all societies at all times. Now these moral codes are subject to the societies in which they arose, which is why morality is subjective.

If the question is can we do better? The answer is yes, but we must rid ourselves of the last barrier of hindrance, that which we prescribed morality to in the first place. Religion is the last hindrance to truly worldwide moral code.

Quote from: DenDen60 on March 08, 2015, 09:44:55 AM
Could we create a moral code that transcends religions?

Sure.  Religions do it all the time.

I thought that we did.   That's why we have trial by jury now, rather than trial by combat or trial by ordeal.

A standard moral code outside of the law? Since morality is subjective, NFW.

A moral code for each individual to decide on for themselves? Sure, that's how things are already.

http://www.progressivehumanism.com/progressive-humanism/humanist-ethics/

Article on humanist ethics.

One point the article makes is that any code of ethics must be progressive in that we will deal with issues like cloning and dealing with new technologies like AI that have substantive impact on  our societies.

But you need to get rid of a god as creator of moral standards first and view the problem from a strictly humanist viewpoint.

Quote from: DenDen60 on March 08, 2015, 09:44:55 AM
Could we create a moral code that transcends religions?

Don't be a dick.

All done.

Also, what the fuck is it with all the newbies posting about morality, like that's even an interesting subject.

Quote from: the_antithesis on March 08, 2015, 07:45:35 PM
Also, what the fuck is it with all the newbies posting about morality, like that's even an interesting subject.

Videogames?  :eyes:

Newbies?

Quote from: stromboli on March 08, 2015, 07:57:10 PM
Newbies?

Yes. Newbies don't make much honey.

Mmm, honey *Bllleeehhh*

.. what were we talking about again?

Oh yes, well we already do have a moral code that transcends religion. Most religious moral codes comes from an ancient book of sand dwellers, who in the time of making up those moral codes lived in a time they were happy to beat, rape, torture and kill for the fun of it. So I think given I don't believe any of those count towards a moral conduct, my morals are pretty good where it stands.

Hey its a slow night and I've got nothing going on, so whatever.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1692212/atheists-rewrite-ten-commandments-mythbusters-adam-savage-judged-new-commands/

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3.The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their     
     perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10.Leave the world a better place than you found it.

This is actually kind of a dumb list. I think it isn't a set of commandments as a set of suggestions.

There are several sets of non religious commandments on the internet. But as has been stated, we already have a fairly good set of laws to apply in most in instances.

Hm... 1 post.

(http://www.vixenrose.com/images/welcomeM.jpg)

We already have morality that transcends religions. 

"Don't be a dick."

I think we could. It'll be a tome of about six-million pages, give or take, but you could eventually nail it down. Of course by that time it'll be ready for major revisions...

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 10, 2015, 03:55:06 PM
I think we could. It'll be a tome of about six-million pages, give or take, but you could eventually nail it down. Of course by that time it'll be ready for major revisions...

"Don't be a dick."

Six million pages my ass.

Okay, you don't like the exaggeration, but the point is the same. It certainly needs to be more complex than some ten commandments. It needs nuance. Which will require a lot of verbiage.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2015, 12:17:48 PM
Okay, you don't like the exaggeration, but the point is the same. It certainly needs to be more complex than some ten commandments. It needs nuance. Which will require a lot of verbiage.

Why?

Stuff that gets that complicated is usually because someone, multiple someones, added things to it that do not make it any better but give them an unfair advantage.

Like the tax code that says everybody must pay taxes, except big corporations who don't have to pay as many taxes. Things like that.

So what would be complex about a moral code that doesn't have addendum like "love everybody, except gays. It's OK to hate dem guys."

With all due respect I find the opposite to be true. Simple precepts are not sufficient to meet the needs of complex situations without myriads of exceptions for the subtleties of life.

But we are talking in generalities. If you have the solution to human moral dilemmas, please share the specifics with us.

We don't need moral codes, we have the laws to take care of that accept the ones that have been corrupted by Christian morality. Most of our really stupid laws are because of religion that prevents our pursuit of happiness. Moral codes don't stop Christian immorality, that is obvious. First, do no harm should be the first code. Then the Golden Rule---both if broken you get a fine, and if you can pay it you go to jail for a time depending on the harm that is done with no parole. And the courts should be formed by people train in ethics, not lawyers that just want to win and make ridiculous amounts of money. Like Shakespeare said: "First, kill all the lawyers."  :eek: :biggrin2: Solitary

Quote from: stromboli on March 08, 2015, 07:37:58 PM
http://www.progressivehumanism.com/progressive-humanism/humanist-ethics/

Article on humanist ethics.

One point the article makes is that any code of ethics must be progressive in that we will deal with issues like cloning and dealing with new technologies like AI that have substantive impact on  our societies.

But you need to get rid of a god as creator of moral standards first and view the problem from a strictly humanist viewpoint.

Thanks for the link.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 10, 2015, 03:55:06 PM
I think we could. It'll be a tome of about six-million pages, give or take, but you could eventually nail it down. Of course by that time it'll be ready for major revisions...

Actually, I do not think it would need too many pages.

I think a few general guidelines would suffice. Laws would not need to be so voluminous but refer to the guidelines, which are of course not codes but guidelines to make us think and make the best decisions for that particular situations.   

Quote from: DenDen60 on March 15, 2015, 04:15:17 PM
I think a few general guidelines would suffice. Laws would not need to be so voluminous but refer to the guidelines, which are of course not codes but guidelines to make us think and make the best decisions for that particular situations.   

I think that's idealistic, but I do agree that we need to have a golden rule, and a sense of empathy when making laws. I just don't see what code is sufficient to every viewpoint in every situation. 

In reality there is not a moral code.  Let me amend that--there is only one moral code--and that is the one you have crafted and used for yourself.  Since a moral code is needed to keep you from stepping on the toes of your neighbors, governments try to craft a set of morals with the laws that are established legally.  All of our written laws are designed to keep me from stepping on your toes.  And as long as the legal system works consistently and fairly, that is all that is needed.  We don't need a moral code thrust upon us by religions.   Our constitution, in theory, is a great instrument to keep us from stepping on each others toes.  It is based upon English common law, mostly, and since it can be amended, it can be kept current. 

Since I am most knowledgeable about Christianity, I will say that there really is no 'Christian Morals'--they don't exist.  Each and every person who tries to evoke it has a different picture of what that means.  It fluctuates according to the person using it--and the time frame in which it is evoked.  All morals are situational and relative.  If you don't believe me, just read the bible.

Well i think that we all already have a ''Moral Code'' built in, but in some people , it just doesnt work very well..
(http://i57.tinypic.com/szwhe0.jpg)

Don't be a dick is pretty close to my philosophy. You can write a long and involved "moral code" but at some point it involves interpretation and then you are back to lawyers. Everybody treat everybody else with respect and expect the same in return. Works for me.

I would speculate that most atheists already have, a natural personal moral code in how we treat others, based on our humanity. 

No specific set of rules to follow so as to not be on the receiving end of the wrath of a very unpleasant god, but what feels right.

It seems fairly axiomatic to me that a moral code not based on religion would go a lot farther toward creating a fair and just society than any 'received wisdom'.  Every religion I have looked at has somewhere in it the concept of 'the other' -- the heathen, the gentile, the infidel, the untouchable.  As soon as you admit the idea that someone is not of your tribe, you open the door to institutionalized discrimination, covertly or overtly.

NO and nor do I think atheists should do that. Our behavior is in our evolution, not our clubs. You try to compete with religion by mimicking it like that you set up a future to become a religion yourself.

"Atheist" is not a moral code. It merely means "off" on god claims. It is not a moral code, economic view, class, political party or loyalty oath.

I know atheists that would frighten me with their views if there were a majority. I know atheists who are republican/libertarian whom value Ayn Rand "fuck you I got mine" economic views whom Paul Ryan a Catholic also likes.

I know other atheists who stupidly think you should(as if you could) completely rid the world of the private sector on a planet of 7 billion who like Che whose view lead to Cuba. No fan of that either.

I have run into atheists who have their own superstitions like thinking "all this" is one giant thinking thing itself. Others who buy into 9/11 conspiracies.

"Off" is the only thing I have in common with other atheists. I would sooner vote for a religious person whom I share economic views with than vote for an atheist who I don't have anything in common with outside "off".

I am not saying atheists should not flock to each other, I am saying we should not try to set up a code ourselves. If we manage to do that in great numbers we will become a religion at that point and we would fit Hitchen's definitionE of "poison".

Our species ability to be cruel or compassion is in our evolution. A label will not automatically make anyone do good or bad. Grouping is part of our evolution as well, so no, that will not go away, but anything that humans set up should be subject to anti monopoly concepts and oversight, scrutiny and even ridicule.

Our behavior is best explained by evolutionary psychology and neurology. Anything outside that is merely our personal likes.

"Dont be a dick" is impossible on a planet of 7 billion because everyone can think of things they don't want to hear from others. It isn't about being free from being offended. Civility isn't about only saying nice things about others, civility is what you do when you get offended.

If the 'christian' moral code is so great, why has man had to add laws regarding the following, often counter to the bible?

slavery, child endangerment, bigotry, racism, sexism, blackmail or bribery, discrimination against LGBTQ persons, incest, torture or terrorism, rape, mistreatment, exploitation, and relocation of native populations and many more

Quote from: stromboli on March 08, 2015, 10:24:44 PM
Hey its a slow night and I've got nothing going on, so whatever.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1692212/atheists-rewrite-ten-commandments-mythbusters-adam-savage-judged-new-commands/

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3.The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their     
     perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10.Leave the world a better place than you found it.

This is actually kind of a dumb list. I think it isn't a set of commandments as a set of suggestions.

There are several sets of non religious commandments on the internet. But as has been stated, we already have a fairly good set of laws to apply in most in instances.

I get the intent behind this, but still, those ideas are not patents invented or owned by the label "atheist".  Our ability to use our brains is evolutionary, not label based. To say people of religion are incapable of doing anything on this list would be a mistake.

Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is not in the word "atheist". We can promote those good ideas without writing them down as if we solely own those ideas. You can still have your groups and clubs as atheists, but still not a moral code. We do not have to mimic religion to compete with it.

The danger with all groups in our species history when you do this, can start out seemingly harmless, but there is a future we won't be in that can allow future atheists to change it into something no human should want.

We already have in the secular west good ideas in the form of common law that allow for everyone to have their clubs. We don't need to become a religion ourselves which always starts with lists like this. Good intent doesn't always end up in good results.

Quote from: Brian37 on March 22, 2015, 02:48:10 PM
I get the intent behind this, but still, those ideas are not patents invented or owned by the label "atheist".  Our ability to use our brains is evolutionary, not label based. To say people of religion are incapable of doing anything on this list would be a mistake. No you are not directly saying it, but someone who believes would see this and make the false assumption you are implying there is a social order where they are treated differently.

Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is not in the word "atheist". We can promote those good ideas without writing them down as if we solely own those ideas. You can still have your groups and clubs as atheists, but still not a moral code. We do not have to mimic religion to compete with it.

The danger with all groups in our species history when you do this, can start out seemingly harmless, but there is a future we won't be in that can allow future atheists to change it into something no human should want.

We already have in the secular west good ideas in the form of common law that allow for everyone to have their clubs. We don't need to become a religion ourselves which always starts with lists like this. Good intent doesn't always end up in good results.

Quote from: Brian37 on March 22, 2015, 02:48:10 PM
I get the intent behind this, but still, those ideas are not patents invented or owned by the label "atheist".  Our ability to use our brains is evolutionary, not label based. To say people of religion are incapable of doing anything on this list would be a mistake.

Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is not in the word "atheist". We can promote those good ideas without writing them down as if we solely own those ideas. You can still have your groups and clubs as atheists, but still not a moral code. We do not have to mimic religion to compete with it.

The danger with all groups in our species history when you do this, can start out seemingly harmless, but there is a future we won't be in that can allow future atheists to change it into something no human should want.

We already have in the secular west good ideas in the form of common law that allow for everyone to have their clubs. We don't need to become a religion ourselves which always starts with lists like this. Good intent doesn't always end up in good results.

Nothing that you've said, my friend, precludes the possibility, that I as an atheist, can still come up with a moral code that transcends religions, which means both the religious and non-religious can agree on it. I would like to think that a lot of us humans, regardless of our beliefs about God, already have an evolved similarity in our morals. We could possibly come to some points of agreement at least.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 22, 2015, 03:13:25 PM
Nothing that you've said, my friend, precludes the possibility, that I as an atheist, can still come up with a moral code that transcends religions, which means both the religious and non-religious can agree on it. I would like to think that a lot of us humans, regardless of our beliefs about God, already have an evolved similarity in our morals. We could possibly come to some points of agreement at least.

Oh sure you can, but you also missed the point where someone beyond your control in the future can turn it into something you never intended. You are allowing your current evolutionary empathy to ignore what I was saying. Our behavior is not a patent invented by any one label. You start treating the mere position of "off" into a moral code you are falling into the same trap religion does.

"Atheist" is the position of "off" on god claims. Outside that we are as diverse in our behaviors and classes and education levels and economic views. That list could be used by future atheists in ways you don't intend now. There is no such thing as a utopia and it is a bad idea for even atheists to treat that word as a moral code. Sure you can try, I simply would not advise it.

I don't have to label it, "atheist," I could call it "humanist," but be more inclusive of religious humans as well perhaps. Trying to find what we can all agree on. Hell, I'd settle for the golden rule in some form. Not as a law or anything, just an ideal.

So? Label it whatever you want, if you go beyond treating it as a mere club and set up a moral code, anything can become in the future ridged and dogmatic even if it isn't doing that right now. There is still a future you are not taking into account and a future you have no control over once you are gone.

Clubs are fine but not even clubs should be treated like codes. Our species is still the same species and no label will automatically insure an individual or the club will always do good. Our ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the clubs or labels we assign ourselves or others.

Secular common law allows for diversity already. I owe humans rights, I do not owe clubs or individuals loyalties based on lists.

Quote from: Brian37 on March 22, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
So? Label it whatever you want, if you go beyond treating it as a mere club and set up a moral code, anything can become in the future ridged and dogmatic even if it isn't doing that right now. There is still a future you are not taking into account and a future you have no control over once you are gone.

Clubs are fine but not even clubs should be treated like codes. Our species is still the same species and no label will automatically insure an individual or the club will always do good. Our ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the clubs or labels we assign ourselves or others.

Secular common law allows for diversity already. I owe humans rights, I do not owe clubs or individuals loyalties based on lists.

Don't be so paranoid. It's not that kind of thing. It's just the golden rule, lurking out there, threatening to cross religious lines, and be a guide for anyone who has the wisdom to embrace it.

We don't really need a code. A code is too absolute. What we need is a set of questions that can guide us in deciding if the action we are going to do, the law that we are going to pass, the process we will put in place is "good"

Here is the set of questions I propose.

Does action X, Y or Z

   
• facilitates or impedes my development?
• facilitates or impedes the development of my fellow citizens?
• facilitates or impedes my interrelations and interactions?
• facilitates or impedes the functioning of our governments?
• facilitates or impedes the functioning of our societies?

Furthermore, does it

   
• let me free to develop the way I see fit?
• impede on the liberty of my fellow citizens.

Of course you need to ask the same questions to look at the different options.

The "moral code" is in our evolution, not our labels. Understanding in natural terms why humans group and why we behave the way we do, is the best understanding humans can have.

No matter the group, be it political, religious, race, nationality, or business model we all flock to like minded people. That helps humans create social order and cooperation. The downside is when we see a pattern we think works for our group, it causes conflict with other groups, and far too much that group defaults to conflict rather than diplomacy.

You start treating a club as better than another, it perpetuates the same human tribal divisions we should work to reduce. Now again, you cannot stop groups from existing, but understanding what goes wrong in that process goes a long way to reducing conflict.

Atheists need only one "code" that is no code other than valuing human rights. Outside that, we do not always agree, and even within the atheist groups we join, we should never be blindly loyal.

I know atheists who value Ayn Rand, whom I do not like. I know atheists who value Che whom I do not like. I lean left socially but stop at political correctness and setting up taboos to protect others as a blanket solution.

Ultimately all 7 billion humans are individuals and so are atheists. We must never think we are above the same evolution that has always displayed the same range of human behaviors. Not even atheists are immune to behaving in violent ways. That makes it even more important not to turn the mere "off" position on god claims, into a moral code. We can have or clubs, but we should not set up codes. Secular laws already protect pluralism.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 22, 2015, 04:01:15 PM
Don't be so paranoid. It's not that kind of thing. It's just the golden rule, lurking out there, threatening to cross religious lines, and be a guide for anyone who has the wisdom to embrace it.

It is not being paranoid at all. It is a statement of evolutionary behavior. Humans when they find a pattern they think works for them, will become loyal to it and even to the point of projecting it on others. That is not a label thing, that is an evolutionary thing.

We have the "Guide" in us. It is called empathy. But we also have bitching in us too. Codes always have a bad way of becoming dogmatic. It is precisely because atheists act more like individuals and not sheep that allows us to think for ourselves. I don't want to see the "off" position which is what the word means, into a moral code. My "code" is to human rights, not labels.

Empathy is the underlying emotion for the golden rule, but it is still just an emotion, and often goes out the window when other emotions become involved, such as jealousy, or anger, or even simple frustration. That's when a code comes into play. Without a code, we couldn't teach our children how to deal with other people when conflict arises.

The golden rule is already codified in most segments of humanity including most religions. It is just there, waiting for anyone to embrace it as guide for the solving of social conflict, especially on a personal level. It's not unique to atheists, nor to any other worldview. It's by no means an absolute, nor is it a complete code for every situation (as I already said, that would be a lot of words). It's just a moral code that fit's the bill, for the original post, by transcending religions.

In any societyies there is a moral code / guide lines some not written down others written down. but i asume youy meen creating sort of a non religus 10 comandments ?

Quote from: AtheistHardliner on May 09, 2015, 04:07:18 PM
In any societyies there is a moral code / guide lines some not written down others written down. but i asume youy meen creating sort of a non religus 10 comandments ?

I think the odds of getting anything called 'commandments' agreed to among atheists are pretty slim, and getting agreement on ten of them equally unlikely.  How about The Ten Darned Good Ideas, Discuss?  :D

I would offer the following:

1: Check your calculations.
2: You might be right.  On the other hand, you might be wrong.
3: If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't say it online.
4: The statement that something is true should be assumed to include the phrase "pending further observations".
5: Occam's Razor is your friend, but you should change the blade occasionally.
6: The only thing that should be written in stone is that nothing should be written in stone.
7: A difference of opinion is not a personal attack.  There is a huge and important difference between the phrases "I didn't like (x)[ because (y)]" and "(x) sucks!!1!"
8: You might be wrong.  On the other hand, you might be right.
9: Your freedom of speech does not imply any responsibility on my part to have to listen.  This works both ways.
10: Check your calculations again.

Quote from: trdsf on May 09, 2015, 07:15:51 PM
I think the odds of getting anything called 'commandments' agreed to among atheists are pretty slim, and getting agreement on ten of them equally unlikely.  How about The Ten Darned Good Ideas, Discuss?  :D

I would offer the following:

1: Check your calculations.
2: You might be right.  On the other hand, you might be wrong.
3: If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't say it online.
4: The statement that something is true should be assumed to include the phrase "pending further observations".
5: Occam's Razor is your friend, but you should change the blade occasionally.
6: The only thing that should be written in stone is that nothing should be written in stone.
7: A difference of opinion is not a personal attack.  There is a huge and important difference between the phrases "I didn't like (x)[ because (y)]" and "(x) sucks!!1!"
8: You might be wrong.  On the other hand, you might be right.
9: Your freedom of speech does not imply any responsibility on my part to have to listen.  This works both ways.
10: Check your calculations again.

1. and 10. sound really good!

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 09, 2015, 09:11:06 PM
1. and 10. sound really good!

I was gonna go straight from #8 to #10 and see if anyone noticed the miscount.  :)