Could we create a moral code that transcends religions?

[Solomon Zorn]

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...

[the_antithesis]

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.

[Solomon Zorn]

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.

[the_antithesis]

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."

[Solomon Zorn]

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.

[Solitary]

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."  Solitary

[DenDen60]

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.

[DenDen60]

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.

[DenDen60]

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.   

[Solomon Zorn]

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. 

[Mike Cl]

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.

[Green Bottle]

Well i think that we all already have a ''Moral Code'' built in, but in some people , it just doesnt work very well..

[stromboli]

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.

[Feral Atheist]

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.

[trdsf]

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.