Irreducible complication

An example of the detail would be that a naturally progressive person like me might decide that treating people equally included some assistance to those disadvantaged by prejudice in society, while a conservative would say equal means exactly that.

Yeah sure, but THAT is not a problem, because in that case, you either do something to help a group of people, or you at least make sure they´re not treated worse than anyone else, either way is a win and perfectly fine morally speaking.

I try to behave ethically, right down to not dealing with companies who treat their staff or the environment badly.

Yeah, if you go by the basic idea that if YOU wouldn´t work there yourself if you had any kind of choice, due to how the company treats employees, then it´s probably not a place others would want to stay either.

However freedom of religion (like speech) is an important principle, although only if they don't harm people.

+1.

I'm not fond of any religion, regarding them all as long running con tricks set up for their priestly castes, but Islam in particular is furtherest from my values.

Oh goodness, there´s lots of religions much worse than islam.
And there´s a galactic chasm of difference between the fanatics(and the ones just exploiting it) and the rest, just like within christianity and many other religions.

Go take a close look on so called "scientology" and you will get seriously creeped out.

Imaginos1892 wrote:What you are really looking for is a human source of morality, derived by logic and reason and not depending on some outside agency, be it real or fantasy. I've done some thinking on the subject. A successful moral code can be derived from just two axioms:

Life is good.

If it's not, there's no point even trying to formulate a moral code.

Fair is fair.

A workable morality must be applied equally to everybody.

Murder completely violates the first axiom. Assault, theft, rape and slavery all violate it in smaller ways. Discrimination and intolerance violate the second axiom. And since most religions are based on discrimination and intolerance...
--------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

It can usually be reduced to even simpler than that, how do YOU want to be treated by others?

Although i know for some that can be difficult, because they lack the empathy to put themselves in the situation of another, as a baseline statement, it goes very very far.

Imaginos1892 wrote:What you are really looking for is a human source of morality, derived by logic and reason and not depending on some outside agency, be it real or fantasy. I've done some thinking on the subject. A successful moral code can be derived from just two axioms:

Life is good.

If it's not, there's no point even trying to formulate a moral code.

Fair is fair.

A workable morality must be applied equally to everybody.

Murder completely violates the first axiom. Assault, theft, rape and slavery all violate it in smaller ways. Discrimination and intolerance violate the second axiom. And since most religions are based on discrimination and intolerance...
--------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

Nice place to start. Now let's refine Fair is Fair.

What is fair? Fair to me is quite a bit different than it might be for you.

Is fair best defined as; From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs?

or perhaps: everyone is created equal and has certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

PeterZ wrote:Nice place to start. Now let's refine Fair is Fair.

What restrictions on your freedom are you willing to accept in exchange for equivalent restrictions on other people's freedom? Not identical restrictions, equivalent restrictions. Things that mean as much to you as the things you want to prevent 'them' from doing mean to them.
--------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

PeterZ wrote:
Nice place to start. Now let's refine Fair is Fair.

What is fair? Fair to me is quite a bit different than it might be for you.

Is fair best defined as; From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs?

or perhaps: everyone is created equal and has certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Wow, you´re shallow enough for rubberducks to run aground on aren´t ya?

Either, both together, or neither, all fine.
Add "do no harm" and you might get something slightly better.
None of those alone or together are good definitions however. But all of them might give you some decent hints.

You don´t want to be part of society? Then you probably need to emigrate to your own planet, because otherwise you´re stuck with having to interact with other people, which means you cannot ignore them, just to reach your own personal definition of a good or fair life.

Individualism is great, and should certainly be protected, but if it starts hurting others, then you need to amend the level of individualism that is going to be sustained, because otherwise you infringe on that same individualism of others.

Do as you please as long as it hurts noone and nothing, but the moment your actions have any kind of impact on others, ignoring that means you are hurting the exact same right of others that you demand for yourself.

PeterZ wrote:What is fair? Fair to me is quite a bit different than it might be for you.

Is fair best defined as; From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs?

or perhaps: everyone is created equal and has certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I prefer the Three Rules as a basis.

1- Do not act unjustly to another.
2 - Do not speak falsely to another.
3 - Do not take that which is not freely given.

Murder is a violation of both Rules 1 and 3, a life was taken, almost certainly unjustly.
Stealing breaks Rule 3, as whatever was taken was not freely given by the true owner.
Trying to blackmail someone would come under breaking Rule 2 etc etc.

In my opinion, any workable society needs some form of those three rules as the foundation. The rigor to which they are enforced may vary, but without a basic "I don't try to eff-up other people's lives and in return they don't try to eff-up mine" aspect, you get societies prone to collapse and which rely on sheer force to stave off the inevitable uprising (North Korea being an excellent example of that).

Both Michael and Imaginos have conveyed essential elements of the Golden Rule; do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Yet, both clearly justify the validity of their moral code in secular terms. Michael clearly asserts that his definitions are a function of humanity and human society.

Taken further, these rules have to be adopted by societies to be able to work. Game theory would predict inordinate benefits accrue to free riders; those that do not follow these rules but expect others to do so. Some form of enforcement or disincentive must be used to discourage free riders.

Also, when a society conflicts with another society that holds an incompatible moral code, must the society that believes in some variant of the Golden Rule restrict itself in that conflict to The Rule even in War? Doing so would increase the likelihood of losing and then being subject to a morality deemed inferior by the defeated society. Wouldn't it be more moral to defeat the opponent and establish the superior morality in a larger sphere of influence?

Initiating the use of violence against another individual, or another society, violates the first axiom.

Failing to defend yourself or your society against violence would also violate it.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Initiating the use of violence against another individual, or another society, violates the first axiom.

Failing to defend yourself or your society against violence would also violate it.

Agreed. Does it follow that one can respond to violence in a completely unrestricted manner and still be moral according to the code?

I suspect that equivalent restrictions are not absolute. Treating an enemy as I would want to be treated by an enemy is self defeating if the result is a continuation of hostilities. Treating an enemy horribly strikes me as eminently moral if it shortens the conflict and reduces the overall harm caused by the conflict.

Congratulations, you have discovered the core problem of deontological ethics: Rules, applied in an absolute fashion, may degrade into absolute nonsense if you don't realise when the logical base no longer applies.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems apparently do not just apply to mathematics, especially the first one.