A Rational Code of Ethics - First Draft
67A Rational Code of Ethics
My aim in this article is to propose a draft Code of Ethics that is widely acceptable and simple enough to be taught to children. I understand that this is an ambitious project and do not expect to succeed on a first attempt. Although I am writing alone, I gratefully acknowledge a great deal of help, mostly from authors I have never met and also from discussions, face to face and on-line.
Of course I do not expect the Code to be universally adopted. That would be the ambition of a megalomaniac. My criterion of success would be if most readers considered it realistic and helpful, and if none found major flaws in it. That's ambition enough.
Here are two ground rules I have set for the project:
- Make no reference to any faith or belief system
- Import no 'laws' directly from any earlier source
The reason for the first of these rules is that belief, by definition, is accepting as fact that which can't be proven. Belief systems are mutually exclusive and therefore can't all be true. They can never form the foundation of a universal code.
The second is a derivative of the first. To import from a source is to favour that source above others, while to pick selectively from a source could be seen (by its adherents) as dilution of the original.
Also, it seems better to seek generalities than to attempt to address all eventualities because:
- the latter results in an impossibly long code
- any such code would have a very short useful life
And, where possible, it seems better to proscribe than to prescribe because:
- proscription allows more personal freedom - everything is acceptable, generally, unless, specifically it is not.
- prescription attempts to direct human behaviour instead of merely setting a few boundaries.
The separation of Ethics from Religion is nothing new. Rationalist philosophers have produced entire library shelves on the subject. But for the most part, these are scholarly works that are not accessible to children or even to the lay adult without a course of study. Everyday 'working' ethics need not be so complicated. In fact, the simpler the better, as the aim is for the code to be memorable. The rational view is that religions confuse the intuitive ideas of good and bad by linking them to a belief in God as the source of all such knowledge. Children are capable of understanding good and bad without any such complication.
What matters to the world is that people behave responsibly towards each other while they are alive. Even those who believe that people survive their deaths must surely still admit that dead folk play no active part in society. A code of ethics should therefore be immediate and pragmatic, and concerned solely with the real and tangible.
This should not be taken as an attack on religion. I am no more attacking religion than I am attacking music. I am simply dismissing religion (and music) as unnecessary and unhelpful in the particular field of behavioural ethics. Those who wish to pray (or play) are welcome to do so but should think carefully before forcing it on the children.
There is a minimum level of knowledge required to support any ethical code. For example, it is clearly not necessary for everyone to have a deep understanding of, say, cosmology, but to be a functioning member of the human family a few basic facts should be understood. As these are few and simple, they will be included in the Code. These facts, in particular, must be demonstrably true beyond reasonable doubt and should not be articles of faith.
Having finally completed my preamble, here is my first attempt at a Rational Code of Ethics. As with all drafts, it is offered for criticism and correction. With your help, after a few iterations, we might be able to create something of value.
Part One - The Knowledge
We share the Earth with our fellow Humans, with the rest of the Animal Kingdom and with the Plant Kingdom.
Though we are subject to natural forces beyond our control, we are responsible first to each other and our future generations, then to all life on the Earth.
Part Two - The Code
- Do not hurt, harm or abuse other people
- Do not force your will on other people
- Do not take what is not yours
- Do not be cruel to animals
- Be moderate in your consumption
- Do not be devious, treacherous or deceitful
- When misfortune occurs, do not give in to despair
Postscript
I have not used 'baby language'. The code is not meant for infants, though the basic principles would normally be conveyed naturally by responsible parents. Instead, I have tried to use language that is neither too simple nor too difficult. Ideally, a teacher could introduce the code and conduct a discussion on each item to reinforce understanding and to show how each follows naturally from the 'Knowledge'. For younger children, illustrative stories could be devised.
I think there is nothing in the code as presented that should offend or alienate any reasonble individual or group. Yet I think, if it were widely adopted and practised, the world would be a friendlier place. We can but dream.
Postscript 2
I have published two more hubs on this topic. A Rational Code of Ethics simply sets out the code revised in the light of feedback received. A Rational Code of Ethics - Discussion Page expands on the ideas and is meant as the forum for further feedback and discussion.
Thank you for reading!
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thanks Shalini, for the read and the suggestion. As far as possible I've tried not to tell people what to do, in the hope that people will do the right thing without being told. But let's wait and see what others think too.
It's a good code. My only suggestion would be to transform it from what not to do to what to do. Accentuate the positive!
1. Treat all living beings - humans and animals - with kindness, respect, care, and concern.
2. Live and let live.
3. Enjoy what is yours and allow others to keep and enjoy what is theirs.
4. Treat the earth with kindness, respect, care, and concern.
5. Use the resources you need wisely. Waste nothing.
6. Be honest, truthful, and straightforward in all your dealings.
7. Seek hope in every sorrow.
Look on the bright side!
:) Suzanne
I love it, truly love it. I agree with your comment on Shailini's suggestion.
I also like very much the idea of a code to which people can be invited to give their voluntary assent, in line with point two in Part Two.
Of course the problem is as far as I can see that such a code, and its promotion, would be very like "preaching to the choir," and people who don't agree with it (and I would expect the most strident opposition to it to come from the "religious lobby") will actively work against it.
Also there are already similar codes in existence and people don't adhere to them, so what will encourage them to adhere to this one? Not wanting to be pessimistic, just practical.
But four thumbs up for a great effort and I look forward to further debate on this subject.
Love and peace
Tony
Suzanne - my reason for not prescribing is that I prefer leaving people completely free unless they need to be 'drawn up'. I agree there are pros and cons to this approach.
Tony - I don't expect it to take over the world. A few hundred hits would do for a start! But I just had an urge to have a go and see what I could come up with. Thanks for the read!
Hmmm. Seems very sensible and reasonable. Isn't that what religion is supposed to be, in the first place?
Number two of part two is very important. Should be enforced at any cost.
I believe there are sub-clauses that cover important issues that threaten today's peace everywhere.
I wish this project very well, and I am certain this will be acceptable to all. :)
Hi SiddSingh - a Rationalists code had better be reasonable, but I'm glad you find it sensible too!
Quicksand - a good code would provide a bedrock from which real issues could be discussed, without having to include the details within itself. At least, that's what I'm pitching for.
I love the concept Paraglider. I'm out of thoughts for the day - it's 11.00pm. I totally encourage it and am very interested in the outcome of this. Is long overdue, I'd like to see it integrated in school teaching particularly. I'll visit this hub from time to time and see what's been added. Thumbs up as well.
a few thoughts..
life is more than the plant and animal kingdoms.
is it not right to hurt someone to stop them hurting others. eg attacking nazis in WW2?
i agree on not forcing your will - its what i call the truth prime directive - not to coerce. but again is it right to coerce people to wage war on evil?
what constitutes cruel to animals? as a veggie i think killing and eating them is pretty darn cruel, but many disagree.
do not be devious - isnt it ok to be devious and deceitful in the fight against evil - eg undercover police officers who tell lies?
its all well and good, the code is not the problem, the problem is that people will not follow ethical codes even when they are presented. what is really needed to safeguard our future is a cure for the most destructive of mental illnesses - genetic psychopathy. ie we are programmed by evolution to be selfish. selfish is a very good survival trait, we still have that in us, but now with our technology we dont need to be selfish any longer, but the programming lingers on still. as yet psychotherapy has no known cure for genetic psychopathy. the point i make is not that we lack codes, but the bigger obstacle is that people are unreceptive, so this well meaning attempt at the code may not bear the fruit which I pray it does bear. and since the bigger problem is unreceptiveness (in psychology, resistance), the cure is a therapy of receptiveness - which brings me full circle back to the old Holy Grail, which I have harped on about in my other hubs.
I would like to see this study expanded though, and become of use, but I think it is early days as yet, I hope you get more helpful feedback on this.
Alex
Paraglider. it is a worthy undertaking to put together a simple code of ethics that perhaps we might all be able to agree upon. I, too, have been thinking of this, and I think that it can be done in three basic rules:
1) In the case of competent adults, do not subject another adult (or his property or dependents) to anything for which you have not obtained the other competent adult's consent.
2) In the case of small children, animals and adults who are non compos mentis who are under your dominion as dependents:
a) When at all possible, apply rule (1) and acquire their consent.
b) If you subject dependent others to something they do not consent to, make sure it is absolutely in their best interest and necessary for their well-being.
c) Be a good steward and provide them with what they need to the best of your abilities.
3) Do not spread misinformation upon which others may rely to their detriment.
Rule (1) covers all the basic sins against others: murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, etc.
Rule (2) covers taking care of those you have accepted responsibility for.
Rule (3) covers all forms of lying that may hurt others. (You are not required to share information that is private. You just don't need to lie in ways that affect others.)
I haven't put anything in about sins against oneself, as I think ethics is only about how we treat others.
You will notice that Rule (1) absolutely outlaws socialism.
I like phrasing it in positive terms. Maybe you will be the next hammurabi, hopefully not so verbose or complicated. I have always tried to create general principles to live my life by, as I am not, by nature, a detail oriented person. In mathematics we choose the postulates we believe, then everything else can ultimately be derived from that. But some derivations, like some finer points of canon law, are twisty because it seems the ramifications of two postulates collide.
Great start! For the moment. You've pretty well covered the waterfront. You might consider adding something to the effect of "Use your talents productively and creatively." And something like "Cooperate with others to realize the common good" or some other explicit expression of the importance of communal values.
Most people know right from wrong and many choose wrong.
You would have to rewire the human brain to make people do the right thing as a rule.
Humans have the muscles and the brain wiring to produce more facial expressions than any other living creature. This implies the need to people to express their good and their bad sides.
Animals and other non human creatures do what they do for survival. It is not a bad thing when a lion kills its prey, that is what a lion does.
It gets more complicated with people, right and wrong is not an absolute, it is subjective depending on the values set by the local community.
My point is that humans have too much latitude in how they perceive right and wrong or an ethical behavior.
The Geneva Convention Agreement is a perfect example of setting up ethical rules. The ethical or good countries tried to observe this agreement to the letter, while the unethical or bad countries tried to use it to their advantage.
Morality has to be the dominant function in the human brain to make it work. It also has to be a universal absolute to work. Dictating morality or ethics is in the scope of religion and not human nature.
You can dress a tiger up in a duck outfit but it will always be a tiger. Now if you can rewire the brain of a tiger to make it think that it is a duck, that might work.
Evil or bad is dominant and that would account why bad apples will always turn good apples into bad ones. Put a good apple in a barrel of bad apples or put a bad apple in a barrel of good apples and the results are the same. Bad prevails.
Issues Veritas, bad apples are not bad by nature. They have gone a little further in the process of putrefaction than the good ones. We call them bad apples, because we don't want to eat them. It's not a moral judgement.
Ethics and morality are artificial, but they do serve useful purposes. We probably don't all agree on the same ethical rules, which is why exploring our different rules for ethical behavior is interesting.
So many people agree in general that stealing is bad. But so few agree that it's equally bad when done collectively as when it is done individually.
Jewels - thanks for the voice of support. Much appreciated.
Alex - Children did not fight against the Nazis. Nor do they act as undercover police officers. On the other hand, isn't it possible that children who learn a rational moral code might be less likely to grow into nazis, criminals, etc.? I think that our history of linking ethics to a God belief has failed us partly because the God belief is simply impossible for many, and what often happens then is that the baby (ethics) is thrown out with the bathwater (religion).
Aya - That's a nicely consistent set of principles. However, I think you're looking more at mission statements for government than at character formation in young children. As per my reply to Alex, I think there are no quick fixes to societal problems, but there may be a future in trying, gradually, to populate society with more responsible individuals, by starting young.
Hot Dorkage - the problem with positives is that not everyone has the opportunity or ability to apply them. Be kind to animals - many city dwellers never see an animal to be kind to. Or, love your neighbour - but maybe you just can't. On the other hand, you can give him space to be himself. I am quite strong on the proscribe but don't prescribe notion. Thanks for the read!
Ralph - These are good, and I like the idea of one or two encouragements. Draft one is deliberately the proscriptions for reasons explained. But I think I will add a couple of prescriptions to the next draft. Thanks for the encouragement.
Issues Veritas - {Dictating morality or ethics is in the scope of religion and not human nature.) There, we part company. Religion is based on faith, or belief, which cannot be pulled back into the rational domain. It is not a good starting point for an ethical code. I'm afraid your bad apple analogy doesn't work. There is no correlation between 'bad' meaning decayed and 'bad' meaning evil. It is just a pulpit trick.
humans are putrefying like apples the process just takes longer
Evil is dominant as is fat unhealthy foods. All around you the evil, the bad for you is more enticing than the good and what is good for you.
Issues veritas - that doesn't mean we are doomed to hell in a hellbasket by default. If your apples are rotting, send them to the compost heap and grow new ones. The only reason evil is dominant is because we let it happen. Change only happens by changing ourselves.
A moral code void of emotional persuasion is a most wonderful and worthy pursuit.
Paraglider - I see Suzanne's and hot dorkage's point - I think children especially, actually grown ups too, react more postively to a 'Do' than a 'Don't' - just the contrariness of human nature I guess. So it's the same thing - just put differently - an Active and Passive Voice of ethical codes?
I see Aya's basic rules as a natural progression from a code of ethics for the individual to the tenets by which a country should be governed.
Of course. ;) I believe there have always been these universals, no matter what lens, ism, religion or philosophy we want to subscribe to them (well, at least with the birth of cooperative societies and 'modern' thought). I especially like Ralph Deed's addition of using your talents and creatively as a probably very modern introduction to the universal code--but an extremely important one.
Will all the realists, please take one step forward.
Where do you people live, that you think a code is the answer to the problems we see in the world today?
The one code in the Garden of Eden was broken
The ten commandments are broken
Any system of codes that has ever been setup in the world, has been broken.
I won't be coming back to this hub as it serves no purpose.
Issues Ver--If they have not served a purpose, then why do they exist?
There are always aberrations in all of nature--including human nature.
issues veritas - my reason for writing this is because at present we have a mess in early education. Some children are taught ethics via religion (any religion). If they don't accept the religion, they are likely to reject the ethics too. Others are taught nothing at all. I am not trying to legislate for society. All I'm trying to suggest is a separation of ethics from religion, so that we can agree on a widely acceptable set of ethical guidelines that can be taught in schools. It is not necessary to confuse children with notions of sin, guilt, evil, etc.
Jewels - you understand the aim completely. A moral code that doesn't need fairy stories (true or false!) attached to it.
Shalini - I understand the point too but don't fully agree. I do intend to take the consensus on board in a second draft, but won't rush into it for fear of the whole project being 'tossed in the wind'
Lita - I agree that these universals are there to be educed from the individual. We risk complicating and obscuring them with our isms and religions.
i.v. - your argument seems to be if you cant do something perfectly with total success, don't even try. The ten commandments are broken not least because five out the ten require the existence of the Jewish God and one of the others allows for slavery. We can do better.
I enjoyed reading this! I am very spiritual, but as my profile indicates, I am not connected to any religion, so I don't have that membership to a church that often creates separation.
I think teaching children the importance of integrity, kindness, not forcing one's will on other's, being moderate in everything, is a good code for living.
Thanks VioletSun - I'm far-tavelled and have lived and worked in many countries and cultures. I'm pretty sure that the core values of humanity are universal and can be separated from religion, yet remain in a form that no mainstream religion could take exception to.
Great start, Paraglider - I am a great believer in secularism, and your code is both intuitive and well reasoned.
I like many aspects of Kant's take on morals and ethics - 'treat others exactly how you would like to be treated' is something that my old Grandad used to try to live by.
Hi Sufi - I prefer secular States, like Attaturk's Turkey, or the Founding Fathers' plan for the US, to States with officially established religion. Similarly, on the personal level, I prefer separation of religion and ethics. Freedom of religion can still exist on the personal level but it should be kept out of schools, (unless as part of a comparative religion study). My only trouble with the 'treat others as you would wish to be treated' formula is that it could be argued as a license for masochists to practise sadism.
Agree with the secularism - whilst most religions have a version of 'do unto others', it often becomes 'do unto others......unless they have a different religion/ideology or possess oil. I agree about the schools thing, too - nothing against teaching religious studies, but it should be generalised rather than indoctrinating one single belief system.
Fully agree about the over-simplification - I look to that as an everyday starting point. That is why I like your code - simple but effective. I may even pin it to the wall!
Maybe I should reduce it to a bumper sticker or even a fridge magnet version:)
I have a nice piece of flat olive wood that I may just carve Paraglider's Code into :)
i like it so far; one note about language: substitute "world" for "kingdom" in Part One?; also i agree with Shalini. some children simply are not aware that they can help others; they are not bad or lazy kids.
Thanks Teresa - I think Kingdom is the correct term in biological classification, but it does sound a bit old fashioned. I stopped at seven because I don't want to exceed 10 and expect to have to add one or two more as per Ralph's or Shalini's suggestions.
This is well written but I do not agree with a couple things.
((Make no reference to any faith or belief system)) If this is to be enforced or adopted universally, it will oppress any and all who are of any faith at all.
((Import no 'laws' directly from any earlier source)) So any law that was written how many years ago? Earlier source laws were good for the most part. I know that some were oppressive in nature. Just because something is old, doesn't make it useless or wrong.
Hi SirDent - thanks for the read. Both of these were instructions to myself to help me devise the code. They are not part of the code. The idea is that all faiths and belief systems more or less converge on the subject of personal ethics, therefore these universal ethics can be taught independently. Of course Christian households would continue to teach their children in their own way.
In the second, I meant that the code should not directly import or quote rules from, for example, the Decalogue. But if you look at the code I think you'll agree that nearly all of the secular content of the ten commandments is present.
This article about changing manners and mores in the UK may provide some ideas http://www.harpers.org/media/pages/2009/05/pdf/Har
Sorry. only Harper's subscribers can access the article called "The Quivering Upper Lip" by Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple describes the traditional virtues of Englishmen and decries the current decline in sobriety, civility, courtesy, reserve, etc., in the UK. Quite an amusing article for anyone who can access it. I tried to cut and past it without success.
Thanks Ralph. I visit the UK enough to be well aware that manners have declined and fallen away from the traditional. There are good and bad aspects to that of course. What I would like to see is the 'separation of Church and State' apply even to the primary schools, with a separation of religion and ethics. The school (like the State) should be concerned with behavioural ethics but not with religion.
The combination of secularism and minimalism combined is a winner. The less there is to learn the more likely it will be remembered, understood and actually acted upon. Better still is the introduction at grade school or even pre-school level. Seeds grow best in fertile soil.
Each section of the code is general enough to cover a plethora of sub-sets. If the broad goal can be attained the details are automatically covered.
I suppose you’ll always have problems with people who want to “interpret” specific words in the code. Now what exactly do we mean by “cruel”? Whose definition of “moderate” shall we use?
I agree whole-heartedly with Ralph and Lita regarding creativity used to contribute to the general welfare.
Alex Caldon and issues veritas both make valid observations. They’re talking about a hardware problem however.
The people who carry the genetic aberration leading to pathological psychosis are a very small minority of the population. Unfortunately, they seem very often to be those in positions of greatest power.
That being said, your code should be very useful to the rest of humanity and it might eventually lead to the sort of unity that will be needed to, humanely of course, overcome and restrain that small minority that seems hell bent on spreading misery to every corner of Earth.
They of course, once getting wind of it, would spare no effort at making sure it never sees the light of day.
You’ve set yourself a daunting task my friend. For what it’s worth, you have my vote.
2. Do not force your will on others
Teaching itself is one form of forcing your will on others.
3. Do not take what is not yours
This will spell the end of capitalism, and hence will not be tolerated.
4. Do not be cruel to animals.
This implies vegetarianism, and may not be acceptable to a large part of humanity.
The others are fine.
I agree with your code paraglider. I taught my children transactional analysis using a childrens book called "I'm OK Your OK" which promotes a very simple way to be responsible for what is ethical.
If you have not seen this childrens version it is a simplification of the active psychological process of T.A.
It uses very simple language and yet applies to us all. It connects with the feelings for self, removing projection thus the child sees it as true to them. Good luck with this pursuit, I support it wholeheartedly.
ColdWarBaby - I'm glad you found this one and glad you are 'on board'. I am very cautious about adding 'do' statements because they seem to age faster than the universal don'ts. However, I am very conscious of the Ralph input. I was also encouraged by Sir Dent's comment because, though he is a committed fundamentalist Christian, his niggles were about process, not content. This suggests that I might be right in saying that core ethics are truly independent of religion and may indeed be universal.
Julaha - Teaching as true 'education' literally means 'bringing out', not forcing in. Teaching does not have to be top down.
The end of Capitalism was also encapsulated in the Decalogue commandment 'Thou shalt not steal'. My hope is that if people can be persuaded that morality comes not from God but from within, they may be more willing to accept it.
About vegetarianism, children don't easily understand farming. But they can easily learn that it's wrong to kick a cat. I think it is OK to instill basic principles at a young age and leave the refinements until later.
But these are all good points and well taken. Thanks for your input.
Earnestshub - I know the book. I agree with you that it's a very good base to build on.
I don't know if this project will ever rise higher than Hubpages, but I'm enjoying the venture, regardless.
This is an interesting project. It would be a comprehensive undertaking, but well thought out for sure.
I've been away for a while without Internet access.
One of the first things I did when I got back was to check out Hub Pages. You can be certain that as soon as I saw the words rational and ethics in the same sentence under your name, I didn't waste a minute getting to it.
I have very high expectations regarding your wisdom and ability to communicate it in ways that cross many boundaries without being threatening or even confrontational.
I'm happy to say I was not disappointed.
I can't honestly comprehend why the psychopaths are running the asylum while brilliant thinkers such as you are relegated to obscurity.
We're in a sad state Dave and you're the sort that could help lift us out of it given half a chance.
Thanks SweetiePie. I intend to develop it a bit further here on HP, then maybe produce a pamphlet version for distribution to education authorities. But it's still early for that.
CWB - Thank you for that high support; I am honoured. This one has been in the back of my mind for a few weeks. The main reason I delayed was a concern about being presumptious. But so far the feedback has been encouraging and I'll certainly follow up with a revision and a less sketchy introduction.
Paraglider,
Maybe some teachers be interested in this hub. Never hurts to post this to some education boards, and it would be some extra traffic for you.
Sufi, treating others as you would have them treat you works well only with people who are just like you and share your preferences. This is why asking their consent first is a better way to treat others. You never know when something that you think is an appropriate way to treat another might harm or offend someone else.
Paraglider, the comments about stealing, in reference to both socialism and capitalism, are instructive. Clearly, there is more than one definition of stealing at play here, which is why defining breaches of another's rights ought to be done very precisely, so that if we do disagree about ethics, we can at least find where the point of disagreement lies.
I suspect that it may in fact have something to do with how different people have different preferences about how they will be treated. Some want to be taken care of. Others want to be left alone.
Regarding the knowledge, what if we get another planet to live on?
Aya - I understand that fully. As I stated in my second comment, it is merely a starting point for my everyday life. If I am buying something in a shop, I don't ask for 'consent,' but treat the assistant as respectfully as I can. That is all I am trying to say, no more and no less.
I like Paraglider's code, and I am hoping to see it taught in a school near me, soon. They like to study ethics and morals over here :)
Andrew, does that depend on whether the planet is there for the taking, or we take it off some other life form?
Andrew - I'll let you rewrite the knowledge section when that happens :)
Sufi - Greece had something of a monopoly on it, at one time!
Jewels - A planet without native life wouldn't be worth the taking :)
Sufi, if you are buying something in a shop, you do ask for the consent of the person who has the authority to grant you what you want. As for treating the shop assistant with respect, what exactly does that entail? Are you assuming the "shop assistant" doesn't own the shop? Would you treat him differently if he did?
Some people go out of their way to be extra nice to people who they believe are in a worse situation than they are. For instance, they smile a certain way at small children, the handicapped and those they believe are "less fortunate" than they are. The smile is intended to be friendly, but it is quite possible that the people being so treated resent the "respectful" treatment, and would much rather be treated as equals. (In many situations, we are much more hard and demanding in our treatment of equals. Extra politeness spells extra social distance.)
There are many other situations where one person's preference clashes with that of another. Some like to be hugged when they are sad. Others like to be left alone. It's possible for someone to make a mistake, without meaning any harm.
Sometimes when people see someone who is dressed in shabby clothing, they assume that person is poor, and they try to go out of their way to be nice, even offering to pay for new clothing. The person they thought was poor may just be sloppy or socially inept. These kinds of attempts to be nice backfire, because they make the person who is shabbily dressed aware of the social implications that others draw from his appearance.
There are so many factors in human relations that it is quite possible to offend by assuming others need and want what you need and want.
Aya - I am not 'some' people ;)
Try not to generalize my personality to the whole population - overanalysis of my simple statement is not productive. None of the above apply to me, therefore they are irrelevant.
The maxim has served me well over the years, and I see no reason to change it. As an ex-shop assistant who often wears shabby clothes, with a handicapped mother, I see all sides of the situation and try to act accordingly.
All of the above situations are about understanding a little basic psychology and body-language, rather than ethics.
{{It's possible for someone to make a mistake, without meaning any harm.}}
I haven't stated it here, but I have elsewhere, and will again, in the intro to version 02:- If more people try to do no harm, we won't need so many people trying to do 'good', which so often backfires.
Over-analysis leads to self-consciousness.
"over-analysis leads to self-consciousness"
Undoubtedly, but in the right time and place. In social situations. I tend to be an intuitive rather than a rational person. I very rarely stand there and analyse how I am going to act, but react to the particular situation.
The analysis comes later - at the end of every day, I try to set aside some time to reflect upon the day, what I did right and where I could have acted better.
This is one of the reasons why I am fully signed up to the Paraglider Project - the codes are a solid foundation on which to develop intuitive behaviour.
Paraglider, Sufi, I agree. First, do no harm.
:-)
Good job Paraglider, and it's a fine idea I think. Still, I can't help but think that most people who would consent to teaching such a basic code to their children aren't causing a whole lot of problems anyway. They aren't the problem in the first place.
In the neighborhood where I grew up, the first law was something like, if you can take it, it's yours. If you let it be taken, you never deserved it in the first place. Many, many people live by that law and that law alone, and no amount of reason will disuade them, because until that law kills you, it works fairly well. Sociopathic morals are modeled at the highest levels of our society. Instant gratification, might makes right, more is better, me first.
How do you combat such a ruthless pedagogy? Not with a thoughtful list for children, though I wish that could work. Anyway it's a more inspiring exercise than any I've done in awhile. Kudos. :)
Great hub - unfortunately, and I don't mean to offend anyone who have read and commented on your viewpoints, but your simplistic code has already changed based on the suggestions you've received for inclusion. This is perhaps the primary reason a simple code will not work with free will humans.
Also, I believe people will make it a religious code no mater what your intent may be. For an example, the 10 commandments were a set of rules for self government which became the law of the land and thereby a universal standard for religious and moral teachings.
I like your concept. Perhaps your audience should include biblical as well educational scholars.
Thanks for sharing!
Sufi - real time interaction has to be intuitive (or very accomplished). The Jesuits belived that if you get the message across early enough, you have an intuitive Jesuit for life. The same should be true wit rationality.
Aya - ultimately all the proscriptions reduce to 'do no harm', but that one needs a little expansion to be meaningful :)
Pam - My concern is the children who are receiving no ethical guidance in school or etchical guidance served up with religion. These ones are being damaged by the state education system.
jxb7076 - The 10 Commandments is the perfect example of unification of state and church. Half of them are specifically about God. Only four are genuinely secular. This is exactly what I'm trying to discourage.
I wish you the best my friend. Here's your world wide challenge: 33% Christians, 21% Islam, 16% non religious, 14% Hinduism, 6% primal-indigious, 6% Chinese traditional, 6% buddhism, 22% Judaism, 36% Sikhism. source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht All these groups, with the exception of perhaps the 16% non religious group hold firm to traditional form of morality based on underlining religious principles. I think your proposal would be beneficial as a universal standard for morality. I put myself in the 33% Christian box however, in the absence of God and state there are certain principles of morality that simply makes sense if man expect to live in peace. You offer a bold concept. I wish you the best.
I think you mean 0.22% Judaism and 0.36% Sikhism.
You're correct Andrew - thanks for the catch.
2 codes. 1. Respect thyself, thy neighbor, and the earth. 2. Be moderate in your consumption. That covers everything. But i do have one stupid question regarding the cruelty animals statement, does that mean no more hamburgers? (you know what i mean, carnivorous food as a whole) i'm suspicious you may be a vegetarian, not a problem. that one code though could change the entire planets forward thinking if it does reference "no eating of animals"
jxb7076 - I suspect that the ethics common to all major religions are common because they are innate and probably precede the religions. So I am not trying to teach irreligion. I'm simply suggesting that it should not be taught in schools and in particular not as a vehicle for ethics.
aquahealer - no 'thy' please. That puts it firmly into KJV territory! I'm not a vegetarian. Humans are omnivores by nature. I see a distinction between humane animal husbandry and cruelty, but I agree there's room for argument there.
It was broken in the Garden of Eden but redeemed by Christ. It is getting to know the person Jesus that changes people. When you get acquainted with him you want to be like him. That changes people.
Deltachord - I think you might have missed the point. Being 'born again' is a personal affair but is too exclusive to form the basis of any universal code of ethics. Besides, I think you'd find it hard to demonstrate that people have been behaving better towards each other in the last 2000 years than in the BC era, or that Christians behave better than Buddhists, Hindus or irreligious folk.
No. I'll politely disagree. I didn't miss the point. Man by himself isn't able to create a moral system that is higher than God's morality.
Man is able to differentiate between behavioural ethics and religious belief. This man thinks the first should be taught to all children and the second left to the discretion of religious parents. Is there anything in my proposed Code that you think is unsuitable or unhelpful for children to learn?
No. I don't find anything in your code that would harm children or be unsuitable. But I do think that Christian parents that truly lived their faith could help instill principals in their children. It has to be in the heart and a changed mind to be effective. Actions stem from how a person thinks.
To go back a bit in our discussion...I do think some people have behaved better because they took their responsibility as Christians seriously.
Thanks Deltachord - what I'm taking from this discussion is that a Rational Code of ethics needn't be seen as interference in a Christian lifestyle. We (in schools) teach fundamental ethical behaviour and you (in homes, churches) are free to teach your religious ethos. That way, no child is being left out and no child is being taught religion against his/her parents' wishes. Sounds good.
But a child should be allowed to practice his Christian faith in school also...as in prayer for example.
Or Muslim faith, or Hindu faith...? Anyone should be free to pray if they so desire, but not as part of the school timetable (unless at a privately run Christian school - but I don't think such places are particularly healthy).
Thank you Paraglider. I thought your hub interesting and the comments thought provoking.
Thanks Peter - As I said in the intro, this one is something of a project. I'll be adding to it in the next few days.
Nice, but your code looks suspiciously like something I read in a book called the Bible, just worded slightly differently and ommitting a few -- in fact, it even looks like something I read in a buddhist temple as well (which is amazingly the same as those old stone tablets)-- I thought your plan was to make a code that was not derived from an earlier source. If that's the case then I'd just pretty much say "been there done that", and it doesn't work--- the 10 commandments doesn't work because man can't follow them, your code doesn't work because man is and will never be able to folllow your code, that is the underlying problem with mankind, we hate codes, commandments, and everything else that has to do with living peaceably towards all men and doing the right thing.
I like what you said here: "Belief systems are mutually exclusive and therefore can't all be true."
I wish everybody believed that. It's what I tell people all the time.
I'd recommend that you revise your idea about generalizing because I know alot of people who don't like to generalize and are very "black and white" and they would need to be admitted to a psych. hospital if they were expected to generalize everything that pertains to living right... just a thought.
I'm not so sure about this one though--
"Children are capable of understanding good and bad without any such complication."
I don't know if you have children or not but it's obvious to me, as a father of 2, that children do not know what's good and bad and desperately need continual guidance, they are more drawn to make terribly horrible choices than good ones. They do, however, have a keen sense of love and tend to respond much better in atmospheres built around a principle of "love"-- which seems to be missing from your code thus far.
I know that you are not wanting to include any reference to faith-- but the fact is.... supposing I am looking for a code of ethics to base my life on-- why should I put faith in your code-(which is needed, despite your shunning of it... consider that you put faith in your chair when you sit, believing it won't break and forcefully slam your bottom side into the floor- this is a childs example of faith)- I really don't see any great reason to put my faith (or may I say "trust") into your code as it stands, especially considering there are other ways of life that have similar principles/ethics which are much more thought-out, much stronger, and have more to offer as "payback" for the faith placed in it-- so you may want to revise this aspect of it.
Basically, the things your trying to do are really great but I'm not optimistic that it will succeed, just as all other codes, commandments, principles that have ever been thought up have failed... mankind is just not interested in it. It's a good idea, and needed.... but it's not the answer for the world.
A code of ethics is not the answer and it's not what the world is in need of to make it a better place.
pjh - thanks for giving this one so much attention. It would indeed be surprising (and very worrying) if there were no similarities between a modern rational code of ethics and the earlier religious codes. The difference is that the religious codes, like the ten commandments, mix ethics with religion and, to my mind, suffer as a result. For example, "don't steal" is perfectly reasonable, but "love God" is not. It presupposes God's existence, something that is too questionable to have any place in state-sponsored teaching.
Like Bertrand Russell 100 years ago, I don't believe in belief. In particular, I think belief systems, being irrational and mutually exclusive, should not be taught to children outside the home. (And ideally not inside it either, but that's not about to change).
I did not say that children know what's good and bad. I say that they are capable of understanding the difference when it is explained to them. Of course they need loving guidance. They don't need it linked to mysticism as that risks clouding and confusing what is really a simple message.
I'm not asking you or anyone else to put 'faith' in a rational code. I'm suggesting that, if properly presented, most children would see it as reasonable and might even agree to give it a go. After all, what part of it is so difficult?
paraglider- my pleasure- from a critical standpoint (I mean I'm trying to critique your idea for benefit as well as understand your position), a godless code of ethics looks like an attempt to solve the problem of the lack of belief in God.
The only thing that you are up against is that all original ethic codes were born in religion, (which can be overwhelmingly proven), so the case could always be made for religion as a result. Why settle for a substitute when you can have the real thing? Regardless, a code of ethics (or commandments) is not what the biblical God is all about.
I think it would be much more effective to just teach the law of the land in godless schools, everything else, without the power of some ruling authority behind it, is only a subjective moral ideal... especially for the godless. So it's better to leave the installation of moral value to the parents and/or religious establishments and out of schools-- I know I don't want any godless school teaching my children moral ethics and especially anything about God, whether positive or negative.
Teaching children a rational code, or any code of ethics, is noble but it still doesn't/ can't fix the problem that faces mankind. The problem is that mankind (and especially children) can't follow these codes and will break them, oftentimes aggressively. Even your code, though for the most part, is a righteous code, is too difficult to be followed, yet even if it can be followed by some freak of nature, what sort of promise in a godless world does it hold for the one who follows it all the days of his life? That person would simply be labeled a "do-gooder", or people might call that person a god or saviour!!!!!! Imagine that? (The reason I say that is because every major religion has a "champion of the code" who is considered a god or THE God because of their ability to follow/fulfill the code either perfectly or in some grand way.)
I understand what you are proposing-- a simple code of ethics for godless educational establishments-- In a perfect godless world it makes sense. In our world (which is full of more gods than we know what to do with), a code without enforcement from governing bodies turns into mere suggestions, which means they are optional. I think it is much more rational to have a moral code that may or may not be part of the law of the land, which is "backed up", "ultimately enforced" or "upheld" by one perfectly moral being from where the code comes (none other than God). But even so, it's not the code/laws/commandments etc. that changes people. Throughout the history of mankind, a strict code of ethics actually does the very opposite of what it's meant to do... instead of bringing life and order, it causes death and chaos. Worst of all it has been the breeding grounds of all horrible forms of dictatorial leadership.
I hope you're not offended by my long posts on your hub. I'll shorten up or stop altogether if you want me to.
pjh - describing my rational code as a godless code is, I think, rather provocative. Sure, the code is godless but its also cheeseless because cheese just isn't relevant. It's musicless too because I didn't orchestrate it. There is no problem of a lack of belief in God. You may wish to conflate ethics and religion, but it isn't necessary and to unbelievers it is simply unhelpful.
Religion has always wanted to control far more than ethical behaviour.That is why the religious codes can never be universal - they are unacceptable to many people and should not be imposed.
The law of the land is an immense body of work and far beyond the requirements (and the understanding) of the average child. So I'm afraid I reject that idea. A few simple principles that all reasonable people can agree on is all that is required.
I'm not trying to 'fix the problems that face mankind'. But the fact remains, some children are being taught religious codes and some are being taught nothing at all. Wouldn't it be better to rationalise this position and teach all children the common denominator ethics that all can accept?
Your constant hammering on the word godless is unfortunate. It comes across as very disapproving. But if you read the hub you'll notice that I'm not requiring people to be godless. They can be as godful as they like. But they should recognise that their god is their personal choice and should not seek to promote it through the schools.
I'd be interested if you can provide a single example of 'horrible form of dictatorial leadership' that was based on a rational ethical code. Please don't quote Marxism which is based on historicism and false 'laws' of history.
Paraglider- I'll keep it short- (after note- I tried to keep it short)- Your 2 groundrules and the separation of ethics from religion are what I'm pointing out-
I call it godless because it's derived from codes that are "godly"-- if it was a derivative of cheese without the cheese then I'd say it's cheeseless! You, yourself said earlier something about throwing the baby out with the bathwater- calling the bathwater God, and the baby the ethics- While I find that pretty provocative, it's your hub and your opinion, and my use of the word godless here is warranted as per your own earlier explanations. You've also said several times that kids are damaged when they grow up in godly environments. I don't know of any kids who were damaged specifically because they grew up in truly godly environments -- that's another story for another time, though. On the other hand, I know and have talked with hundreds or maybe thousands of people who were deeply damaged by ungodly (godless) environments.
I agree with you that religion wants to control more than ethical behaviour- I'm not trying to sound religious but Jesus did more to destroy the religious institutions of His day than anyone has ever done in the history of man. Religion is the cause for most wars throughout history.
Well- if I wanted to try to just be simply ethical with children in a public school I'd just tell them to be nice to others, and don't lie, kill or steal, but my original response to this is that it still doesn't help-
This might be outside the scope of this particular hub, but consider this: In the bible, God said don't break His commandments because it will be the cause of your death, keep them and you'll live. Now consider a code of ethics that comes from man apart from religion: Man says don't break this code of ethics because .... ? it hurts other people? it's not peaceable living? You'll have a happier world? You're going to live and die already so there is really nothing all that powerful that you can back up the ethics with. That's why I'm trying to say that ethics cannot be taught apart from "the bathwater", as you put it,and it would make more sense to teach children some of the basic important laws of the land (which can typically carry into ethics)not the whole broad scope of the law, of course-- They can get the principle of the laws later on or through some other means. At least with that, you'll be able to say there is a governing body available to enforce the law, not just to take care of the bad guys but to offer protection.
Anyhow, lastly, I said a strict code of ethics is the breeding grounds for horrible blah blah blah--- we may not be on the same page with this one, but if it's rational or not isn't the point (obviously the dictators thought they were rational)-For sake of prudency on the internet, I won't make specific negative statements regarding the following and if I do I'll provide a small veil-- You know that it is considered rational and reasonable in a "to the code" muslim country for the women to be willed into polygamous relationships, never allowed to show their faces (or any part of their body) in public and how they are often treated; China is probably the most "humanistic" country on the planet that strives to strip all religion and replace it with a rational code of ethics- what do we see happening? The communist soviet union? North Korea, another secular nation. Many African nations are facing some of the worst genocide in the history of mankind due to strict interpretations of ethics. Almost any country in asia has had a deeply troubled time in their history when a dictator held certain "rational" ethics to an extreme (cambodia? Laos? Vietnam? the gov't of an asian nation to the upper left of me is currently displacing hundreds of thousands of people, enslaving them, killing them, denying basic needs for survival, all in the name of a strict ethical code of their own. You and I may not see them as rational, but they are enforced as rational. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor. They have it in their minds that their ethics are the only way (that's why I said "strict code of ethics") -- that is the danger I was referring to when I said that statement.
Out of respect for you, I'll only respond after this if you have a question or want to discuss further because I don't want to over-run your comment section more than I already have, or come across as provocative !
If you take this cause further, the best way to not alienate the religions of the world is to make an ethical code based on the basic "common" and reasonable laws that we see in the world, which are designed to protect and give people a right to life. That would be acceptable to most of the worlds religions, and you can keep God out of it to a certain extent. I think that's being done already though.?
Well, pjh, I'll pick you up on two things that you said: {I call it godless because it's derived from codes that are "godly"} - No, it is not. I thought long and hard from a non-religious standpoint about what would be the shortest, simplest ethical code and that's what I came up with. From your view, you may say I derived it from the 10 Commandments. A Hindu might say I derived it from some vedic literature. But the fact is, I didn't. The fact that you think I did actually adds weight to my argument that core ethics are truly independent of particular religions but are common to all.
Your examples of failed 'rational' codes don't hold water. The difference between rationality and religion is testability and logic. A delusional dictator or a high shari'a cleric is not being rational, even if he thinks he is. And no-one is advocating enforcing anything. I'm suggesting giving kids a few simple groud rules as a yardstick against which you can explain when they go wrong.
Isn't what your code says an inherent part of all religions?
While I feel religion has its place and importance, being a good human being is more important.
Personally I am a product of two religions and I feel I am far more tolerant due to this fact than others around me of my own religions and others
Cashmere - most religions have advocated the common human values, yes. But they have also mixed them up with their own exclusive beliefs which are the root of many conflicts. I see ethics as a field in its own right that can exist with or without religion. Thanks for commenting.
I think it's typically referred to as humanitarianism. It's based on the common sense and practicality set by the Golden Rule. If you don't want it done to you, you agree as a society not to do those acts to others, ie: murder, theft, slander, etc. In the long run, those laws are ultimately self-protective.
If you look at the end results over the long term, religion and humanitarianism come together. The 'commandments' are just those things written into a code. Jesus said there were two greatest commandments - love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He considered all sin to be sins against love. Stealing from someone, sleeping with another person's wife, murdering someone, etc, all have long term repurcussions that damage selves (yourself or others) and society as a whole.
Personally I find the Church very logical, but I don't care what means other's use to find the same answers.
Hi Iðunn - any working ethical code has to be societally based. I don't necessarily agree that the biblical commandments are 'just these things written into a code', because ethical behaviour doesn't require that one believes in or loves God. That's why I prefer to make a clear distinction.
I'm not sure the distinction is that important, at least to me, but I'm fine with you making that distinction.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but Catholic dogma states that people who act in accordance with an ethical standard who do their best, whether they believe in God or not, go to Heaven. Bet you didn't know that. I'm not worried about whether others believe what I do. I do wish everyone had internal humanitarian standards they try to live up to, to the best of their abilities. Safer that way for the rest of us. :p
I didn't know that specifically, but I'm well aware that the long established churches like RC, Anglican, Presbyterian are generally far more inclusive in their largesse than the new kids on the block (by which I mean the various fundamentalist groups).
I wouldn't go so far as to call the Catholic Church inclusive, generally, at least the U.S. religious right poli-econ version of it as defined by flawed men. hehe. But on that point, that is the real catechism. :)
Less exclusive would have been a better phrase!
lol, yes. thank you :) - semantics again. hehe
An interesting exercise in ethical logic. I do wonder about defining your terms, though. For instance, what happens when questions are asked about what it means to force your will upon someone, and how do we know the difference sometimes between giving in to despair and accepting those larger forces that we cannot control?
Satomko - similar questions were raised about defining cruelty to animals. To be honest, I think that is quite healthy. The code can be remembered from childhood and the questions asked throughout life as they arise naturally from situations and/or further thought. For example, where is the division between consensual politics and forcing of wills? The code provides an anchor about which the ship can drift some way without breaking the chain. Thanks for raising the question.
Wouldnt it be wonderful if "conscious" man, the earth's prime predator, could sublimate his genetic propensity for predation and pull together in a synergistic effort to guarantee his survival as a species? As an incipient species waddling through life like a child trying to balance and make sense of all that surrounds it, we humans are so fragmented by "theism," that what you would like to see happen in terms of "ethics," is idealism to the "n'th" degree. The anomaly "consciousness" has created a "creature" which is unique to the extent of being an "alien" when compared to all other life on this planet. It has divorced itself from the "natural," and it imagines itself able to, eventually, create an environment within which it can control it's evolution. That possiblity exists! At the moment we are doing a terrible job of "adapting" to "Mother Natures" demands for those wishing to become successful species. Your "code" is admirable but the probability of it ever coming to pass is nil. Meaningfully and well presented but just wishful thinking...:-)
Qwark - there's a difference between a code being followed and it being promoted. To be honest, I do not think it is beyond possibility for the West to agree to separate ethics from religion in state schools (and only to teach the former). I've lived long enough in Islamic countries to know that the task here would be far more difficult.
What you say about theism is correct. We have at our disposal the means to live in harmony with the Earth. These are, reason and pragmatism. They are not religion and corporatism. The still small voice of calm needn't be from God.
I was thinking about this attempt a few days ago and wondering how the code is going. Can I see what you've come up with so far?
Hi Jewels - . I've been thinking quite a lot about what comes next. I decided not to rush into version 2, because it would have been too soon for the message (as distinct from the detail) of the various comments to have gelled. I expect to write a follow-up within a couple of weeks. Watch this space!
I certainly will. I have a group of 'thinkers' who I believe will be interested in this and would like to present what you have come up with and hopefully they may add to it. I love the concept
Well, this time around, I'm going to focus less on the background to it and more on a viable introduction and some discussion of the individual parts. And I'm going to try to promote it to some Educationalists to see if any will run with it.
I absolutely agree with you, Paraglider. I think proscribing is the only way to go. Defining what not to do is much simpler, and allows for more freedom, versus a specific set of rules. This is a higher version of law. I think it is exactly what our country needs. The words keep swimming in my head, and I believe they would in children's as well, helping them form ethics as they grow up. I also completely agree that we need a code that is separate from religion. I myself am am deeply religious, but my persuasion of ethics does not work on someone who is not of my faith. This code is something universal ethnicities and religions can follow- I applaud you. I do however, agree with the statement that perhaps a detail about helping others where possible could be included in the second draft. Take your time, and I will be watching for it.
Caitlin - I value your comment greatly because you say "I myself am am deeply religious, but my persuasion of ethics does not work on someone who is not of my faith." I am not religious, but am certain that ethics are independent of religion. Thank you for commenting.
hi Sir Dave, you have a well grounded codes, respect, moderation. And also religion must be separated from ethics, thats is definitely true. You are a gem because of what you are trying to create.......code of ethics....for chidlren to have a future much likely different hopefully! Now, youre a great philosopher,,,,yes dont say no...
Hi Maita - It's been an interesting exercise, trying to evolve a useful code in a public forum. This first draft wasn't so much wrong as lacking in some areas, and the feedback from Ralph, Shalini, Teresa and many others all went into refining it in the new version posted today. As for being a philosopher, I'm strictly an amateur. Philosophy these days is very technical. But what I think I can do is simplify matters to the core and present the conclusions with reasonable clarity. There's nothing Earth-shattering in any of this, but it would be nice if the idea took hold in the schools. Then I'd feel I'd accomplished something :)
Shalini Kagal says:
8 months ago
May I be the first to say Bravo? I like the idea of a Code and not Commandments. I like the idea of ethics delinked from all religions (though in my heart I believe, I have tried to bring up my daughter the 'ethical way' not the 'religious'!) I like a universal Code that includes animals/other living beings.
There's one thing that I would add for myself: Reach out and help when it is needed. Without that, would we perhaps be a bit robotic?