Defining A Code: Rules to Live By

[contentious]

Hello.

More than likely only one person here knows me. I won't give a long-winded introduction as to who I am - that doesn't much matter to any of you. What you're interested in, I'm sure, and are here to discuss, is Ethics and Morality, correct?

Well, as a brief intro, a friend of mine kept trying to get me to come check out the board here. Finally she lured me in. But I've always wondered - why would self-decided atheists such as myself, be interested in other atheists? Atheism, or at least non-belief in the supernatural(metaphysical, pataphysical, and so forth) to me, doesn't require explanation beyond what it is.

Now, I always thought of Religion as a completely separate entity from Morality. Yes, Religions teach Morality, but they also teach a lot of (imo) tripe.

Now, I'm a Computer Tech by trade and a Programmer by study. As a general rule, I don't like people. I don't like social dynamics. I like things to be defined, rather than try and guess how someone means to use a word that they're misusing.

Now, I've never really sat down and thoroughly worked out the 'precepts' of my own morality. Mainly, because the rules I live by seem to me, logical and common sense. Generally speaking, my world-view and morality are based around Objectivism. However, I don't refer to myself as an Objectivist - I'm not. I'm sure Peikoff would have an Ayn-urism. I don't stand on either side of the Objectivist Split, but if I were forced to side Objective vs Subjective - easy choice.

Anyway, I'm no philosopher. I simply think for myself, and some times think long and hard about things that matter to me. I've started to, again because of something that friend of mine said, structure a sort of Code. I mentioned Bushido(which I would never, ever follow) and it kind of(almost jokingly) went from there.

So has anyone else sat down and rigidly defined their 'code' so to speak?

[Sabine Grant]

Welcome to IIDB Contentious!:) Thank you for a detailed opening post which should stimulate an interesting debate.
I have not per se sat down and drawn specific conclusions as to a personal code of ethics. But I have narrowed down as you did which values are important to me and why. Meaning a process of self introspection where I gave myself the permission to test those values.

I have made a few observations in the course of that process:

- that the Golden Rule remains my preferred moral compass.

- that empathy triggers in me the ability to keep myself from inflicting undue harm on others.

- that critical thinking needs to apply in every given situation no matter how large of a majority of folks claims to detain any type of absolute morality.

-that giving the benefit of the doubt needs to prevail in situations when I have no evidence of another person's perceived ill intention.

- that my perceptions are only perceptions and need to be tested before I venture into claiming them to be realities.

Those above are the fundamentals of my own ethics. Their application is not without some struggles on my part. But as I have "imprinted" them in my thoughts as guidelines, they "pop up" like a giant ad which reminds me of what is dear to me. See what I mean?

[Riley Stone]

Hello.

More than likely only one person here knows me. I won't give a long-winded introduction as to who I am - that doesn't much matter to any of you. What you're interested in, I'm sure, and are here to discuss, is Ethics and Morality, correct?

Well, as a brief intro, a friend of mine kept trying to get me to come check out the board here. Finally she lured me in. But I've always wondered - why would self-decided atheists such as myself, be interested in other atheists? Atheism, or at least non-belief in the supernatural(metaphysical, pataphysical, and so forth) to me, doesn't require explanation beyond what it is.

Now, I always thought of Religion as a completely separate entity from Morality. Yes, Religions teach Morality, but they also teach a lot of (imo) tripe.

Now, I'm a Computer Tech by trade and a Programmer by study. As a general rule, I don't like people. I don't like social dynamics. I like things to be defined, rather than try and guess how someone means to use a word that they're misusing.

Now, I've never really sat down and thoroughly worked out the 'precepts' of my own morality. Mainly, because the rules I live by seem to me, logical and common sense. Generally speaking, my world-view and morality are based around Objectivism. However, I don't refer to myself as an Objectivist - I'm not. I'm sure Peikoff would have an Ayn-urism. I don't stand on either side of the Objectivist Split, but if I were forced to side Objective vs Subjective - easy choice.

Anyway, I'm no philosopher. I simply think for myself, and some times think long and hard about things that matter to me. I've started to, again because of something that friend of mine said, structure a sort of Code. I mentioned Bushido(which I would never, ever follow) and it kind of(almost jokingly) went from there.

So has anyone else sat down and rigidly defined their 'code' so to speak?


Hello, Contentious.

Welcome to IIDB. :)

You brought up some interesting topics in your post. I, too, have begun to think about these kinds of things a lot lately.

Before I realized that I really didn’t believe in the existence of a God or gods, I considered myself to be a theist. At that time, I believed that each of us has within us a sort of innate understanding of what goodness is, that each of us understands that love (doing what is in the best interest of others) is “good and right” and hatred is “bad and wrong.” I believed that each of us is aware, at least to a certain extent, of the goodness of a “law of love,” so to speak, and that while various experiences in our lives—including choices we make, etc.,--can separate us or harden us to this inherent understanding of the superiority of this “law of love,” it doesn’t mean that at some core level, we aren’t all aware of it. It doesn't mean that at some core level, we aren't all aware that we are happier (and others are happier) when we allow ourselves to be ruled by it.

Now that I realize that I don’t believe in the existence of a God or gods, I still am not quite prepared to give up this notion that deep within each one of us is a sense of this “law of love” that exists and that ought to be followed. I’m not certain that an atheistic worldview makes such a belief impossible or unwarranted. If it does, I’m willing to look at that and to change my perspectives as needed.

In the meantime, one simple “rule” I try to follow is this: “Strive to be kind (to myself and to others) and to do that which will contribute to the greater good.”

[Simen]

Now, I've never really sat down and thoroughly worked out the 'precepts' of my own morality. Mainly, because the rules I live by seem to me, logical and common sense. Generally speaking, my world-view and morality are based around Objectivism. However, I don't refer to myself as an Objectivist - I'm not. I'm sure Peikoff would have an Ayn-urism. I don't stand on either side of the Objectivist Split, but if I were forced to side Objective vs Subjective - easy choice.

Not being an "Objectivist" doesn't make you a "subjectivist", you know. I like to think I live by methods that are as rational and objective as can be, but you wouldn't find me anywhere near Ayn Rand or her ilk.

As for defining a code to live by, no, I haven't. I'm becoming more and more convinced that no simple code of principles can adequately answer that age-old question How should we live?, and by the time the code becomes complicated enough to be accurate it's more of an ad hoc compilation of guidelines than a hard code of conduct, so I don't really see the point. Rather, I'll take it case by case, using the most appropriate tools I know of.

[Godless11]

:wave: Nice post! I'm a newcomer also. I can't say I've actually sat down and worked out a code of ethics, but I do try to use an objective line of thinking in a given situation. I always try to see the different points of view before I make a decision. And I always try to follow the Golden Rule.

[contentious]

Thanks for the welcome, Sabine, Riley, and Simen.

I kind of let my thoughts wander as I typed that, since this will be a first for me, discussing my ethics openly. I didn't really have any point to bring up except that I've been examining and outlining my thought processes, so I hoped maybe my rambling would give at least one interesting topic of discussion.

Seems it has. Bonus!

Now like I said, I do draw from Rand. I'm not some Randbot though, mindlessly absorbing her 'teachings' and spitting them out as if anyone holding a different view is less than human. Unfortunately, that descriptor seems to fit a majority of people who followed her(Pei-cough-). Others who listened and incorporated(rather than blindly accepting) have had great success- Alan Greenspan, Anton LeVay(if you can call that success?), and few people tend to realize they spent time with Rand.

Anyway, I'm not really here to discuss Rand...not in this post anyway. But it's important to know going forward that I do respect her views, and draw upon them - and that while I do draw on her concepts, I do not follow them all or even verbatim.

So I'll list out, as I did for my lady, the way I work.

First and foremost, I put effort into everything. Yes, I probably come across as long winded, because if it's worth discussing and posting, it's worth discussing in it's entirety and taking the effort to have a quality and meaningful discussion with no ambiguities.

Pride is also important to me. Now I don't refer to "unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem" but rather Self-Respect and Appreciation for the above-mentioned hard work.

Scrutiny is the next quote unquote precept. Falling in line with the 'rational observation of objective reality' as I think it's quoted. I'm not so strict on it. Perception can be deceived, though perception is all we've got.

Trade would probably be the last part. I expect everyone to give back equal effort. When they don't, they lose respect. Likewise, I push to return effort equal to that given me.

These four rules can be applied to all things, as I've seen. Be it in a relationship(I put work into making it right, take pride in being a good boyfriend, and expect she will be a good girlfriend, all while keeping in mind our situation and her feelings)

Now like I said, these are what I've identified. I live by these pretty easily. I do for myself, and expect others to do for themselves. By that silent accord, we can all get along. I don't expect others to bend to my will, and I don't bend to theirs. It's pretty straight forward, perhaps unrealistically simple. I don't worry about whether there's some divine being tallying off my 'sins.'

I guess the Golden Rule comes into play as well. I expect others to treat me as I treat them, so I treat them as I'd like to be treated.

[Civil1z@tion]

Welcome contentious! Hope you like it here!

Personally I don't mind long-winded posts as long as the content is worth the reading. So far you come in that category. :)

Anyways, to the OP, I build up my morality from the idea that every human an intrinsic value. Given that, I believe human life and happiness is inherently worth promoting. Thus, whenever faced with a moral choice, I seek to encourage the greatest amount human life and happiness while harming the least amount of the same. If this sounds like utilitarianism, that's because it essentially is just that.

This philosophy also means that I have no absolute moral imperatives (beyond that promoting human life and happiness is inherently worth doing). I view the idea of absolute rules, such as absolutly no killing under any circumstances, as giving a rule intrinsic value. All rules have merely instrumental value, which means that the value of following a rule is only related to how much happiness and human life is produced.

Finally, this philosophy I will act upon what I believe is moral without the need for goads like fear of punishment or desire of reward. If either was necessary I could not say that humans have intrinsic value, their value would only be instrumental and related to how much punishment or reward I could expect. As Socrates said, "What I have gained from philosophy is that I do without prompting what others do only through fear of the law."

[spikepipsqueak]

Hi contentious, wonderful series of thoughts.

When I have tried to formulate a personal good/bad schema I have always wound up with the Golden Rule, too.

and the following practical addenda in the application, for myself.

because I don't have access to all the data, be open to communication.

because rules don't always cover the ground, be flexible, trusting to my judgment and goodwill in individual cases.

because one can't think and overthink every choice, be prepared to analyse kneejerk, automatic reactions where necessary. I know some of mine arise from learned attitudes and do not reflect my internalised personal morality. Examined, these lead to growth. Unexamined, they can lead to rationalising behaviour that I have been ashamed of, later.

because noone's perfect, don't expect it of myself or anyone else.