Mutuality: A secular ethics project

[Anomalocaris]

Perhaps you can compare your project to a rule book for a voluntary organization. Those who chose to abide by the rules of the organization gets to participate in formulation and amendment of the rules.

But what is the eventual outcome you would like to see? Such an organization can only make a difference if it can marginalize those who do not observe its rules by participate in it. How can you do this?

[Mister Agenda]

Sounds like an interesting project, I would be interested in anything novel that results.

Don't assume malice when there's an alternative and plausible explanation.

[zvi]

Sounds like an interesting project, I would be interested in anything novel that results.

Great - feel free to participate

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

How would you propose to promote the common good if we don't even try to build consensus on moral issues?

I don't. You're the one with the facile and elitist solution to a complex problem.


I repeat; I don't have the chutzpah to even try to decide how others 'should' behave.That why we have laws. I really could not give a rat's arse about the personal superstitions and values of others,unless they get in my face; then THEY have a problem.

[zvi]

No need to be rude. No one is deciding how anyone else should behave. Those who are interested in a more ethical world are discussing together how we should achieve that and if some consensus emerges it is entirely voluntary whether to follow that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

No need to be rude.

Rude? ME?

Mate that was me simply being blunt, not intentionally rude,because I like you.

Did I call you a cunt? NO,I did not,so shadup.

[Cato]

No need to be rude. No one is deciding how anyone else should behave. Those who are interested in a more ethical world are discussing together how we should achieve that and if some consensus emerges it is entirely voluntary whether to follow that.

How much of the conversation addresses those that don't 'voluntarily' follow the consensus?

[Dunno]

As of now in human history, so many people have written about ethics that I think the best solution is to be open to any and all ethics. Even mine. Every person's opinion matters.

[freedomfromforum]

As I said no one is imposing anything on anyone. How would you propose to promote the common good if we don't even try to build consensus on moral issues?
(emphasis added)

Asked the caveman of the sky - Or perhaps more aptly, asked the gods of themselves.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Why can't we create our own "bible" - an ethical code written by collaborating humans (and not attributed to any deity!).

A written ethical code implies absolute moral imperatives. Also implied is some kind of objective base and external moral authority.

A moral relativist, I have not yet encountered an absolute moral imperative , nor any objective moral rule. The only moral authority I accept is conscience.

I not have the chutzpah to presume to tell other adults how to behave,nor generally speaking,do I care.

Pretty much this.

Moral subjectivism is as far as an atheist can coherent go without appealing to some magical realm where objective right and wrong can be grounded.