A Codefied, Agreed Upon Set of Morals

Sounds a bit like an ideal version of 'the law' to me! Its an interesting idea. But if you're an existentialist I supose you make your own laws....

"The Accord" ?

"The Oath" ?

"The Laws" ?

"The Code" Arr ?

An ethic
A code of ethics
A credo
A philosophy
A worldview
A canon
A pact or compact
A constitution
Values
The Way
The Path

And there must be some words that suggest how the principles were derived (i.e. by distilling them from the great moral texts of humanity).

Dale

Bartholomew said:

What would you call a system of codefied morals that ignored divinity, myth, and the questions of beforelife and afterlife?

Click to expand...

Morals are based on engaging in right behavior for fear of punishment.

Ethics are based on engaging in right behavior for its own sake.

Bartholomew said:

A Constitution of Values Derived from Humanity's Greatest Creeds?

CoVaDeHuGreC.

Ew. X_X

Click to expand...

Wasn't this Dune's Orange Catholic Bible?

This is hardly a hypothetical. There are many ethical frameworks devoid of religion. They (e.g. humanism, behaviorism, utilitarianism) are usually called philosophies. Religion is just a philosophy plus an invisible hall monitor

veinglory said:

This is hardly a hypothetical. There are many ethical frameworks devoid of religion. They (e.g. humanism, behaviorism, utilitarianism) are suually called philosophies. Religion is just a philosophy plus an invisible hall monitor

Click to expand...

And philosophy is just the nightmare of imagining we are all hall monitors.

Humanity's Greatest Creeds?

Click to expand...

Now you've gone and gotten subjective on us.

But then, if it is to be your religion, that would be fine.

I think more people are utilitarian than are Christian. They just don't go on about it all the time, the don't even need to know the name of the creed--they just follow it. Utilitarianism is basically the creed that you should do as much good and as little harm as possible. Christianity is a partly a subset of it (and partly a subset of deontology.) I think you may mistake living according to a philosophy with mistaking it for a hobby, quest, cause, faction or political party. I would consider such category errors fallacies, not something to envy and emulate. The best philosophy is just part of living well, it may be utterly unconscious IMHO and still 100% effective.

Morals are our understanding of what's good and bad. That understanding is being updated constantly due to new knowledge or changing circumstances. At any time some of it is contentious and not all of it is to be found in ancient texts.

Ethics are our understanding of what we owe one another. Ethics undergo constant discussion for both moral and political reasons. While morals are assertions of good and bad, ethics are assertions of principle -- which are short sentences that pack a big punch. 'Killing is bad' is a moral, while 'Thou shalt not kill' is an ethic. 'Cigarette smoking is bad' is an emergent moral, and so is 'Environmental destruction is bad', while 'Save the environment for future generations' is an emergent ethic. 'Do as you would be done by' is an old ethic; 'Do as he would be done by' is a newer one that we can see operating in pluralistic and multicultural societies.

You can have morals without superstition or fear of punishment. You can simply have an interest in and a commitment to what is good. And even without shared religion, humanity still has shared notions of good: food, water, shelter, health, love, friendship, belonging, respect, trust -- we can find these concerns in every society.

The appropriate names for these things -- whether they are religiously-based or not -- remain 'morals' and 'ethics'. We all have them personally and they're also embedded in our cultures and subcultures.

Well said, Ruv.

I like Dale said. Call it a "Compact."

Or a cool, Latin-sounding name. I've always loved "Magna Carta."

I've noticed that religious people -tend- to take the morality and leave behind the framework. If I'd been raised in a less fundamentalist home, I'd probably think I was a Christian.

As to the crux of your question, "It's not a religion; it's a way of life"? Somewhat cliche. "...A code of morals and ethics"? Concrete but bland, unless you translate it into Latin. "...the Unifying Ethic"

The reasons for the lower numbers: 1. No intercession; no buffer between you and the cold, hard world. 2. No threat of punishment for evil beyond that of Survival of the Fittest. 3. No reward for goodness beyond that warm, fuzzy feeling in your heart, a reputation for moral exactitude, and a sense of your own worth in the universe.

The lesser attraction is primarily custom. To break with custom carries a price; Deist could only go so far without incurring religious wrath. I lost a lot (family, love, comfort) when I realized that I found fundamentalism repugnant.

The Essence of Virtue

Suppose you heard somebody in danger calling out for help. A part of you feels an urge to stay clear, lest you endanger yourself. This is due to your instinct for self-preservation. Another part of you feels an urge to help the person in danger. This is due to your social instinct, or your instinct to preserve your species. But there is also a third urging that tells you that you should suppress your instinct to remain safe, and follow your instinct to help the person in danger. Now, this urging to suppress one instinct and encourage another, cannot, in itself, be either of them. What do you suppose is the source of this urging?

Is there a reason it can't be the aforementioned social instinct? (a.k.a. empathy)

First of all, the vast fund of experience shows us that the instinct for self preservation is far stronger than the general instinct for survival of the species. Although in some species, including humans, defending ones immediate offspring usually trumps all other instincts.

Secondly, the urge to suppress one instinct and embrace another involves distinguishing between two opposing values. If this distinguishing energy originated from either of these values, it would always choose itself. In fact, there would be no choice. But this is not the case. One of the most remarkable things about humans is that we can choose. In fact, in a situation where the only variable is the human will, the outcome may at one time go one way, and at another time turn out differently. That is why I say that the thing that chooses between two instincts cannot, itself, be either of them. Furthermore, this urging, if answered, weighs against the survival of the individual in which it occurs. Therefore it cannot be a natural instinct to that end. Also, if answered, this urging is a redundancy of the social instinct. If that was necessary, the social instinct would simply become stronger. That would be a simpler and more reliable path. So this urging, which calls for a value judgement, does not meet the efficiency requirement of a natural instinct. Again I ask, where does it come from?

Guilt.

Guilt is an emotion that tells us when we have transgressed some part of our value system. It is not a source of our value system any more than a fire alarm is a source of the fire. Although guilt occurs after the fact, it can be a motivator when we exercise wisdom by avoiding behaviors of a nature that have previously induced guilt. In any case, it can only come to bear after the value has been established.

David Conner said:

First of all, the vast fund of experience shows us that the instinct for self preservation is far stronger than the general instinct for survival of the species.

Click to expand...

Human minds don't just function by instinct; they function by learned behaviour.

Some fear seems innate (e.g. fear of falling, which even babies experience). Other fear is learned. Some compassion seems innate (a desire to comfort infants can be seen even in toddlers); other compassion must be learned (e.g. don't pick up cats by their middles or drag puppies by their tails).

We know for sure that humans can learn to act selflessly in the protection of others. If they couldn't then emergency workers would panic like sheep.

Where does morality come from then? Most of it comes from what we teach ourselves.

If morality is a cultural artefact does that make it entirely arbitrary? I don't believe so -- our empathy is innate and our objective knowledge can be grown and shared.