Your opinion of this moral code?

[Joe Republic]

But I think you could argue not only that much more thought went into the ten commandments than into your guiding principle, it's also more exhaustive.  For example, following its guidance will likely save you from hurting other people or yourself even when you don't know you're hurting them, whereas your philosophy only protects others from your actions when you are aware of their effects.

Could you provide examples?

[angus]

hmmmm.  I'm sure some biblical scholar could come up with a better example, and I'll try to think of one.  you're asking a guy who can't even name all ten commandments, but I guess I'll bite.  Let's see...

Okay, here's one about not coveting your neighbor's wife, which I'll assume is a Jamesean English translation of a Hebrew commandment that may be properly put into 21st century American Standard English as:  Don't let anyone's old lady, except your own, be the subject of your masturbatory fantasy.  Now, your moral guidline says:  hmm, I'm not hurting anyone, so it's okay.  But the reality is--especially if you're circumsized, and it's a good bet that if you're reading the Ten Commandments in their original Hebrew that you are--frequent masturbation desensitizes you, and you stop wanting your wife.  Think of Mister Roper vis-a-vis Helen in Three's Company.  But in this case you think you're hurting no one, so it's okay.  But if you'd followed God's--er, I mean angus' interpretation King James' transliteration of Moses' take on God's--commandments you'd not have hurt her, or desensitized yourself, in the first place.

[minionofmidas]

Oh yeah, everybody, while we're at it.

Opinion of this moral code:

Veritatem sequi et colere, tueri justitiam, aeque omnibus bene velle ac facere, nil extimescere.

Or, in English:
To follow and to nurture truth, to protect justice, to wish and to do everybody equally well, to fear nothing.

Tall order, I'll admit.

[angus]

Now that's more of a moral code.  While the ten commandments are less a moral code and more of a set of laws set up in order that a pre-nation peoples wouldn't tear up the place or kill each other in the closeknit, confining villages of the Levant, and Joe's advice, while excellent advice most of the time, doesn't amount to a moral code owing to its brevity and inapplicability in most situations, this arcane bit of latin actually provides the outline for a morally fit lifestyle.

Not that I agree with it, Lewis.  The last clause, for sure, invites disaster.  Lots of individuals live without fear.  Fortunately for the rest of the species, they don't live long.

[Gabu]

hmmmm.  I'm sure some biblical scholar could come up with a better example, and I'll try to think of one.  you're asking a guy who can't even name all ten commandments, but I guess I'll bite.  Let's see...

Okay, here's one about not coveting your neighbor's wife, which I'll assume is a Jamesean English translation of a Hebrew commandment that may be properly put into 21st century American Standard English as:  Don't let anyone's old lady, except your own, be the subject of your masturbatory fantasy.  Now, your moral guidline says:  hmm, I'm not hurting anyone, so it's okay.  But the reality is--especially if you're circumsized, and it's a good bet that if you're reading the Ten Commandments in their original Hebrew that you are--frequent masturbation desensitizes you, and you stop wanting your wife.  Think of Mister Roper vis-a-vis Helen in Three's Company.  But in this case you think you're hurting no one, so it's okay.  But if you'd followed God's--er, I mean angus' interpretation King James' transliteration of Moses' take on God's--commandments you'd not have hurt her, or desensitized yourself, in the first place.

You're assuming that he lacks the foresight to see that he's hurting someone.

[angus]

ooh, delicious double entendre. 

I've been trying to think of an overarching moral guiding principle, but honestly the only one I can come up with is "Do unto others as you'd have done to you."  But really that falls short of an overarching moral guiding principle as well.  The thing is, just as a compass with only one direction is useless (imagine all 360 degrees being labeled "North"), a moral compass with only one directive is somewhat less than universally useful as well.  And I keeping saying "principles" (plural) in my head.  And I don't think it is necessary or even wise to try to distill morality down to one simple rule.  If you can state some wonderful maxim, then I applaud your epiphany, but I'll still say you shouldn't rest on your achievement.  Finish building your moral compass.

grasshopper.

[opebo]

I voted negative without reading it.  I dislike all moral codes.

[Joe Republic]

hmmmm.  I'm sure some biblical scholar could come up with a better example, and I'll try to think of one.  you're asking a guy who can't even name all ten commandments, but I guess I'll bite.  Let's see...

Okay, here's one about not coveting your neighbor's wife, which I'll assume is a Jamesean English translation of a Hebrew commandment that may be properly put into 21st century American Standard English as:  Don't let anyone's old lady, except your own, be the subject of your masturbatory fantasy.  Now, your moral guidline says:  hmm, I'm not hurting anyone, so it's okay.  But the reality is--especially if you're circumsized, and it's a good bet that if you're reading the Ten Commandments in their original Hebrew that you are--frequent masturbation desensitizes you, and you stop wanting your wife.  Think of Mister Roper vis-a-vis Helen in Three's Company.  But in this case you think you're hurting no one, so it's okay.  But if you'd followed God's--er, I mean angus' interpretation King James' transliteration of Moses' take on God's--commandments you'd not have hurt her, or desensitized yourself, in the first place.

You're assuming that he lacks the foresight to see that he's hurting someone.

And the common sense.  Such a requirement might not have been explicitly stated in my original code, but it didn't have to be because it's common sense.

[Joe Republic]

Wow, it looks like out of all the people who chose to vote 'negative', the only one so far to come forward and elaborate on his position is this guy:

I voted negative without reading it.  I dislike all moral codes.

Seriously, are there any real people willing to explain their position?  I'm genuinely interested to see your views, and the only things that have been said so far are positive to neutral.

[angus]

hmmmm.  I'm sure some biblical scholar could come up with a better example, and I'll try to think of one.  you're asking a guy who can't even name all ten commandments, but I guess I'll bite.  Let's see...

Okay, here's one about not coveting your neighbor's wife, which I'll assume is a Jamesean English translation of a Hebrew commandment that may be properly put into 21st century American Standard English as:  Don't let anyone's old lady, except your own, be the subject of your masturbatory fantasy.  Now, your moral guidline says:  hmm, I'm not hurting anyone, so it's okay.  But the reality is--especially if you're circumsized, and it's a good bet that if you're reading the Ten Commandments in their original Hebrew that you are--frequent masturbation desensitizes you, and you stop wanting your wife.  Think of Mister Roper vis-a-vis Helen in Three's Company.  But in this case you think you're hurting no one, so it's okay.  But if you'd followed God's--er, I mean angus' interpretation King James' transliteration of Moses' take on God's--commandments you'd not have hurt her, or desensitized yourself, in the first place.

You're assuming that he lacks the foresight to see that he's hurting someone.

And the common sense.  Such a requirement might not have been explicitly stated in my original code, but it didn't have to be because it's common sense.

not sure about that.

It may not be common sense to realize that the power requirements to operate an incandescent lightbulb (~100W), for example, is greater than that for a fluorescent lightbulb (~15W).  It may also not be common sense that the first derivative of energy with respect to time is power, and that therefore usage of incandescent lighting depletes the world's energy supply faster than fluorescent lighting.  Yet your usage of incandescent lighting, in your own "moral code" is perfectly okay, since the only one you're hurting is your own wallet.  You may or may not have any knowledge of the long-term consequences of energy inefficiency, and if you don't, I wouldn't charge you with lacking common sense.  (Though I may charge you with a lack of a good technical education.)

Like you, I'm waiting for some of the "negatives" to step up as well, and I have no doubt that if they're serious they could probably come up with about a thousand other examples illustrating the shortcomings of such an overly simplistic moral code.

[Joe Republic]

I don't consider my choice of lightbulbs to be a cause of significant (key word) harm to other people.  As I said earlier, I also consider 'harm' in the context of how it would affect myself.

[Gabu]

not sure about that.

It may not be common sense to realize that the power requirements to operate an incandescent lightbulb (~100W), for example, is greater than that for a fluorescent lightbulb (~15W).  It may also not be common sense that the first derivative of energy with respect to time is power, and that therefore usage of incandescent lighting depletes the world's energy supply faster than fluorescent lighting.  Yet your usage of incandescent lighting, in your own "moral code" is perfectly okay, since the only one you're hurting is your own wallet.  You may or may not have any knowledge of the long-term consequences of energy inefficiency, and if you don't, I wouldn't charge you with lacking common sense.  (Though I may charge you with a lack of a good technical education.)

Like you, I'm waiting for some of the "negatives" to step up as well, and I have no doubt that if they're serious they could probably come up with about a thousand other examples illustrating the shortcomings of such an overly simplistic moral code.

I don't think that the Ten Commandments would particularly cover this case either, however.

[True Democrat]

I have a negative opinion.  Just because you aren't hurting anyone else doesn't mean you aren't hurting yourself, in my opinion of course.  I've become much more religious over the past couple weeks, so this may have something to do with that my opinion.

However, even if I disagree with your moral code, I am not going to try to enforce my morals on you.

[angus]

I don't think that the Ten Commandments would particularly cover this case either, however.

Oh, I doubt they would either, but then again I'm not sure.  They might.  As I said before, I'm no expert on the ten commandment (prot, catholic, or jewish version) and anyway I'd not have chosen it for a basis of comparison under any circumstances since I see it less as a "moral code" and more as an important historical document providing insight into the laws and sociological thinking of at least one group of ancient peoples of the near east.

[Joe Republic]

I have a negative opinion.  Just because you aren't hurting anyone else doesn't mean you aren't hurting yourself, in my opinion of course.  I've become much more religious over the past couple weeks, so this may have something to do with that my opinion.

However, even if I disagree with your moral code, I am not going to try to enforce my morals on you.

Don't worry, I'm not going to get all overly defensive.

Another subtle reason why I included the last part ("...and it won't get me into trouble") is not only so as to avoid punishment, but also to cover the possibility that my own actions might cause harm to myself.  For example, let's say for the sake of argument that heroin is legal and one person's use doesn't cause any harmful knock-on effects for other people.  If I ever felt the urge to start taking heroin, I would know not to because the subsequent addiction and damage to my health would most definitely get me into trouble.

Plus, there is of course the possibility that causing harm to myself might cause emotional harm to my loved ones, and thus the code still applies.

[angus]

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Ten Commandments are probably the best example you could come up with of a widely recognized moral code, although most people probably cannot name them.  Others might be the Buddha's four noble truths and the noble eightfold path to enlightenment, Keith's Universal Moral Code, the Gospel according to Saint Luke, and the Qur'an, to name a few.  And I think they do form the basis of a fairly comprehensive moral code, so now I think it was probably a choice for comparison.

All are attempts to guide the unwashed masses by couching great wisdom in simple language that simple men can understand.  But you are not a simpleton, Joe, and I still contend that it isn't necessary in this day of universal literacy, and may be even counterproductive, to attempt to distill morality into such simple phrases.  Yours is especially oversimplified.  If you expect to be a best-seller like the bible or the Qur'an, then I still say you have much more work to do.  And don't say, "oh, no, it's just for me.  I'm not marketing." because we all know if that were true you would not have felt compelled to share with, and seek the approval of, the members of this forum.  You don't have to call it marketing, but the fact that you felt the need to post such thoughts here tells me that you are deeper than that one-line moral code suggests.

It simply does not form a moral code, in my opinion.  In fact, it's very nearly an amoral code.  It nearly completely abdicates morality.  It says so in so many words.  Why bother with morality when I can do what I want?  (I say "nearly" because at least you are willing to cease any actions that you are certain will harm individuals.  want a medal for that?)  Well, there's no right or wrong answer here since the question is necessarily subjective, and you ask it in a very subjective way, but I'm sure those who voted positive did so because the line gave them that warm, fuzzy, glowing feeling, just like it did to me.  And I'm sure those who voted negative did so because they were feeling more critical.  Not that they don't like your little sentence, but you asked them not to judge it on the basis of whether it was a good maxim, but what they thought of it as a "moral code" and indeed, at least tacitly, whether it even forms a legitimate moral code.  On that basis it falls flat, since it nearly rejects morality altogether as a basis for deciding upon a course of action.  It comes out and admits to putting Id in charge of Superego, as it were, except in those rare cases in which it allows Superego to tell Id whether harm may come to someone.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[minionofmidas]

ooh, delicious double entendre. 

I've been trying to think of an overarching moral guiding principle, but honestly the only one I can come up with is "Do unto others as you'd have done to you." 

Don't do unto others as you'd have done to you - their tastes may be different.

[Ebowed]

Okay, Joe, I thought of another problem.  (Just trying to be constructive here.)

The code doesn't take into account that sometimes even causing harm is necessary.  For example, let's say a woman who's obsessed with you asks you out.  You cause her significant emotional harm by rejecting her, but you believe it was still in your best interests to do so.  Technically, haven't you violated the moral code?

Another possibility is that of self-defense: if you catch someone who breaks into your house with the intention of raping your wife, is it OK to shoot him?  Doing so would cause him significant harm, but not doing so would cause you/your wife significant harm.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As one wise man said, who just recently died "We're on this planet to fart around, don't let anyone tell you otherwise".

So, yes it's the only true way to live. So it goes.

[Nym90]

Personally, I'd amend it to the following:

In short, I [will] do whatever I want to do as long as I'm reasonably certain that it doesn't harm anybody else, or if so, the aggregate amount of benefit to the world far outweighs the total harm caused.

[Bono]

Personally, I'd amend it to the following:

In short, I [will] do whatever I want to do as long as I'm reasonably certain that it doesn't harm anybody else, or if so, the aggregate amount of benefit to the world far outweighs the total harm caused.

How do you propose to measure that?

[GMantis]

Most people, if they were honest, would say positive.

[Gustaf]

I posted this in another thread on the subject of morality, and after thinking about it for a while, I'm interested to see what other people think of it:

In short, I [will] do whatever I want to do as long as I'm certain that it doesn't significantly harm anybody else, and it won't get me into trouble.

When responding to this, try to remember that I am not religious, and thus I don't directly abide by the teachings of any religious prophets, scholars or texts.

Do you think this moral code is an appropriate way for me to live my life by?

Negative. You seem to imply that you have no moral obligation to others. I'm not sure where you get this idea. I've never understood the idea that one can just arbitrarily uphold negative rights and no positive ones. Maybe I want to harm you. Why should I refrain? The answer to that question may well lead to positive rights of some kind as well.

[Gustaf]

"Appropriate" is ill-defined enough that this question basically boils down to "do you agree with this moral code?", which makes this question a lot more about the respondents' moral codes than about your own.

I had issues with how to word the question effectively, and this was the best I could do.

I don't think it's possible, really.  The notion of a "good" or "appropriate" moral code entirely depends on what you believe in life and on what you think matters.  There is no objective measure of the worth of any given moral code (try as some might to say that there is one).

Eh...THAT, if anything is a subjective opinion. I like you Gabu, but claiming that it is an objective fact that there are no objective facts about certain things is sloppy reasoning and even a bit intellectually dishonest. After all, who are you to say that there is no objective measure?

[Gustaf]

ooh, delicious double entendre. 

I've been trying to think of an overarching moral guiding principle, but honestly the only one I can come up with is "Do unto others as you'd have done to you."  But really that falls short of an overarching moral guiding principle as well.  The thing is, just as a compass with only one direction is useless (imagine all 360 degrees being labeled "North"), a moral compass with only one directive is somewhat less than universally useful as well.  And I keeping saying "principles" (plural) in my head.  And I don't think it is necessary or even wise to try to distill morality down to one simple rule.  If you can state some wonderful maxim, then I applaud your epiphany, but I'll still say you shouldn't rest on your achievement.  Finish building your moral compass.

grasshopper.

How about "Always treat humanity, in your own person as well as in others, as an end in itself, and never only as a means to an end"?