Mutuality: A secular ethics project

[zvi]

Hi. I wanted to introduce everyone to a new project to create a secular ethics called Mutuality.

The human "crowd" created Wikipedia. Why can't we create our own "bible" - an ethical code written by collaborating humans (and not attributed to any deity!). The project has been started by a group of secular Palestinians and Israelis in Jerusalem and we need everyone's contribution!

Would love some feedback and participation from atheistforum.org members. Judging by the conversations on this forum I bet everyone here has something interesting to contribute about ethics.

[link removed]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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.

[zvi]

Agreed. The idea of mutuality.org is not for one person to dictate to the other but rather to get consensus where possible and have an intelligent debate where not.

Some issues have to be tacked collectively. Maybe climate change is an example (not sure) - we might want to create new norms or preemptive action. At least we might need to have a common discussion, not just leave it to individual conscience.

Thoughts?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

At least we might need to have a common discussion, not just leave it to individual conscience.

Who is 'we' and what makes you think such a group has either credibility or moral authority? (outside the group) My position is that morality is an individual subjective decision,based on pragmatism. Such a thing may not be imposed except through coercion or humbug (both beloved by organised religions)

I am unable to support your idea as proposed here.

[zvi]

Who is 'we' and what makes you think such a group has either credibility or moral authority? (outside the group) My position is that morality is an individual subjective decision,based on pragmatism. Such a thing may not be imposed except through coercion or humbug (both beloved by organised religions)

I am unable to support your idea as proposed here.

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?

[KichigaiNeko]

What's a moral??

[pgrimes15]

Hi Zvi. You may do better on a humanist forum. It sounds like you are talking about a kind of "humanist bible" to wrest away from religions the idea that only they are the repositories of good, kind and socially responsible behaviour - I deliberately avoid the use of the term "moral behaviour" because as a previous post said, what is that anyway ? This has been attempted before (ref. Alain de Bottons' book "Religion for Atheists" or A.C. Graylings' bible for atheists) but I don't think it has met with much enthusiasm because atheists tend to be a disparate group with one and only one common characteristic - they do not believe in a supernatural god or gods.

regards

Grimesy

[zvi]

I think you make a good point but I also think that disparate groups can reach consensus on issues - Wikipedia is great evidence of that - or at least have an interesting discussion!

[pgrimes15]

Hi Zvi. I did not mean to be discouraging about this project. Anything that chips away at the deists assumed authority is a good idea.

When you talk about " our own "bible" - an ethical code written by collaborating humans " it does seem to me that atheists I know instinctively look with suspicion on anything that hints at a "code" or "rules of behaviour" since that is the stock in trade of religions.

I do take your point about it not being imposed though, and my contribution is to suggest that the core of any kind of atheist bible or code should be the "golden rule" - one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. (or " Love your neighbour as you love yourself " as the bible would have it ).

Regards

Grimesy

[zvi]

Thanks, Grimsey

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. The only comparison to the bible is an interest in ethics. In every other way this project is the opposite or religion - participation and compliance is purely voluntary and it's an open platform which can continue to change and evolve. I imagine on many issues there won't be a final stand - just a discussion.

I totally agree about the golden rule - in fact the name mutuality is supposed to hint at exactly that (as well as the idea that the project is owned by its members not by clergy)