NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically, lets see if we can come up with a non-religious moral code that anyone in their right mind could agree to. I guess it should serve as a basic set of rules that will help maintain a stable society, so it is my suggestion that a rule be based on some sound logic towards that end, rather than an arbitrary restriction. I'm purposely keeping this first post as open as possible so people can suggest their ideas for why we should have one, what its format should be, etc.

EDIT Sidenote: I guess if enough people get interested we could have a new thread with a poll to decide what to adopt. Maybe we could hold chat sessions if they can be organized...

don't harm others. logical foundation: if this rule is disregarded by all, there will be more likelihood of harm coming your way. if the rule is obeyed by all there will be less likelihood of harm being inflicted on you.
i think in the big picture that works out ok

Do whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn't harm sapient entities, or cause undue suffering to non-sapient entities.

Do whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn't harm sapient entities, or cause undue suffering to non-sapient entities.
why?

Despite its roots, the Golden Rule works just fine for me.

Pure Metal: How do you respond to those not following the code? What qualifications are needed in a situation to determine when you fight back and how do you fight back?

CthulhuFhtagn: Answer the abortion question.

why?
Stupid question. Because behaving otherwise will eventually lead to your own downfall.

Don't need no guru to point out the obvious (karma's the only really obvious spiritual law I find evidence for in the real world). ;)

Despite its roots, the Golden Rule works just fine for me.

Don't piss into the wind?

Don't piss into the wind?
Couldn't have said it better brother. :D

why?
Inflicting harm on sapient beings is detrimental to society, for the reasons you mentioned. I had a reason for the "not inflict undue suffering on nonsapient entities" when I first formulated this moral code, but I no longer remember it.

CthulhuFhtagn: Answer the abortion question.
What abortion question? There was no mention of abortion in any of your posts.

Stupid question. Because behaving otherwise will eventually lead to your own downfall.

Don't need no guru to point out the obvious (karma's the only really obvious spiritual law I find evidence for in the real world). ;)
& @ CthulhuFhtagn... i was just wanting to make sure there was a logical rationale behind that moral statement, is all


without religion and faith as a base, a secular moral code needs logic at its root to give any code authority

CthulhuFhtagn: Well, if you don't want to harm sapient entities or cause undue harm to non-sapient entities, are you allowed to abort fetuses? If not, are you alright with the harm of bringing them into a situation where the mother doesn't want or can't take care of them? In the big picture, what is worse?

And as for karma balancing things out, its obvious that it doesn't work all the time or on the right timescale....

'tis an excellent basis for a moral code. simple and reasonable for a set of morals. i question though : what constitutes harm? and who are to be included in others? which are probably the specifics.... and the bit that people always argue about...

simple religious moral codes work because of the promise of a reward (or the withholding of that reward) once you leave this mortal coil. without the promise of a gain in something by persuing a "moral life" people are free to do what they like in society. it is only Law that constricts them and law gets insanely complicated - making simple moral codes very difficult to formulate.

so i would formulate "do unto all things as you would to thy own person -but think carefully and be sure before you do anything at all" = for the samne reason as above, but often people dont really think about it first (then realise they wouldnt like it AT ALL)

CthulhuFhtagn: Well, if you don't want to harm sapient entities or cause undue harm to non-sapient entities, are you allowed to abort fetuses? If not, are you alright with the harm of bringing them into a situation where the mother doesn't want or can't take care of them? In the big picture, what is worse?

Since fetii (fetuses?) aren't sapient until rather late in development, abortion is fine. Hell, since they aren't even sentient for a good-sized period of time, they don't even qualify as entities for the first few months.

i question though : what constitutes harm?
This is actually a bit of a sticking point.
Does theft constitute harm to a person? Many people agree it is wrong, but it does not fall under some definitions of 'harm'.
I would think there are some other things which are generally considered wrong which also may escape the definition of 'harm'.
so i would formulate "do unto all things as you would to thy own person -but think carefully and be sure before you do anything at all" = for the samne reason as above, but often people dont really think about it first (then realise they wouldnt like it AT ALL)
While I understand what the basic idea of the Golden Rule is supposed to be, I find a problem with the wording of the rule.
The problem with that is the assumption that all people want the exact same thing. If one is a masochist, should one torture others?
I know that most people don't mean for the Golden Rule to be used in such a literal sense, but if we are going to use something as the very basis of a secular moral system derived from logic, I would think we would want something that was literally true rather than in a more figurative sense.

So the question stands at; How does the code deal with people that break it? And how does it determine who is breaking it from an objective view?

This is actually a bit of a sticking point.

I know that most people don't mean for the Golden Rule to be used in such a literal sense, but if we are going to use something as the very basis of a secular moral system derived from logic, I would think we would want something that was literally true rather than in a more figurative sense.

fair enough. i am keen on the thinking part though, not enough of it around :p

& @ CthulhuFhtagn... i was just wanting to make sure there was a logical rationale behind that moral statement, is all


without religion and faith as a base, a secular moral code needs logic at its root to give any code authority
Out of curiosity (and I know you're no Buddhist), but do you believe in the existence of Karma, PM?

Maybe Game Theory could fit into this too. I started a thread a few days ago about that, but that wasn't very popular.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433928

I'll copy a few bits of it here:

--------------------------------------
"Some of you may be familiar with the concept of "Game Theory". If you aren't, browse Wiki, or google it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory

Looking at various, fairly simple games during my studies, I have increasingly come to the opinion that Game Theory is vastly underrated as far as its everyday applicability is concerned.

Most importantly for this discussion, I will focus on a single simple game that will be repeated for an infinite number of times. I will use Torture as an example.

***********************************Others
************************Torture*****************Don't Torture
America**Torture***********-10,-10*****************20,-20
********Don't Torture******-20,20******************10,10

In this table, you can see the two different strategies available to the two players, and a number presents the profit to be made from that strategy, depending on what the other side uses. The first number denotes the US's profit, the second the other's profit.

Now, if this game was played a limited number of times, and they would play in turns, then everyone would be tortured. Why? Because in the last turn, the player cannot be retaliated against, so he will torture. But the other player knows that he will do this, so he will torture in the second-last turn and so on.

But if the game is repeated forever - then that will not happen. Both sides have a choice, but both sides know that if they torture, the other side will retaliate, and everyone will be worse off.

So what happens in the real world? Everyone sits around a table and signs something called "The Geneva Convention"."
------------------------------------

So I guess, as long as you can work out a value for the benefit someone gets for an action, you can put it into a matrix like this and end up seeing what would be best for everyone to do. And that is what the moral code should be.

This is actually a bit of a sticking point.
Does theft constitute harm to a person? Many people agree it is wrong, but it does not fall under some definitions of 'harm'.
I would think there are some other things which are generally considered wrong which also may escape the definition of 'harm'.
Harm: Non Consentual Physical Injury or taking of one's labors. (Psychic/Social "injury" is undefinable, so not useful)

While I understand what the basic idea of the Golden Rule is supposed to be, I find a problem with the wording of the rule.
The problem with that is the assumption that all people want the exact same thing. If one is a masochist, should one torture others?You are confusing "Good" (to a sadist, harming others is "good") with "Ethical" which harming nonconsentual others is not. If one is a Masochist, one should find a Sadist and have as much fun as either of you can stand.

I know that most people don't mean for the Golden Rule to be used in such a literal sense, but if we are going to use something as the very basis of a secular moral system derived from logic, I would think we would want something that was literally true rather than in a more figurative sense.

What you all are looking for is somthing called "Harm Theory" Ethics. Harm Theory encompases a non-Benthamite view of Utilitarianisim which looks to the lowest order of abstraction in human interaction. Since (as shown above) "Good" is a subjective - and therefore undefinable - term, we have to look for somthing that is unequivocably objective - the causation of physical harm.

Basically, the "golden rule" gets modified into a non-dogmatic code that reads thus:

In regards to interactions with Sophonts, An ethical action is that action which causes the least harm possible in any given circumstance, so long as the categorical imperitave of Self Preservation is maintained.

Thus, if, as a Sophont, you need food, you can cause harm sufficient for your survival and no more. One may not resort to theft unless Starvation is the only alternative.

Likewise, fighting/self defense. Because you will be harmed when you are attacked, You must defend yourself with sufficient force to stop the attack - up to and including killing your attacker if necessary, but you cannot kill his whole family afterward.

etc. (long and complicated, only partially worked out on my end, and I don't have big cites to post....) :D