TED Conversations

Zack K
  • Zack K
  • Arvada, CO
  • United States

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Create a Universal Code of Ethics

Isn't it about time that the world that the world stop finding reasons to fight and start finding reasons to join together. Why isn't there universal order in our world, especially when we are visiting others. I think that the forms of government and protest going on today suggest parts of a universal right and wrong that we all should and would be willing to follow. Things like Democracy and even Communism have peaces of the true truth that form a single and ultimate form of law.
Pieces of a puzzle that is how we function as a whole.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Zack K

    • 0
    Mar 14 2012: Discrimination isn't needed for cognitive function. Nor is distinguishing groups important.
    That is in fact the problem, people feel like others are different because of the color of their skin or their sex.
    Part of this universal ethics is to make people see that they are not that different from others.

    And it is true that people may have differing rationales but these rationales are not important as long as they follow the code of ethics, just like peoples freedom of religion today
    • Mar 15 2012: If I can not distinguish you from myself, then I display a cognitive disability. This is the root of in-groups and out-groups, and it is normal to make such groups for if we cannot establish them, then we cannot distinguish each other from George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, or some random homeless guy off the street. Even if people follow the code of ethics, this does not guaranteed it is shared equally such as the freedom of religion. Everyone is allowed to express his or her beliefs, but not everyone is treated equally for expressing his or her beliefs. Rationales influence a person's perception, so they totally effect the person's memories, moods, thoughts, and behaviors. Besides this, happiness is relative; hence, a person always needs more to be happy. This is not greediness, just nature's way of making us to take the next big step forward. The problem is this relative happiness will never allow equality for all people.
      • thumb

        Zack K

        • 0
        Mar 15 2012: there is a difference between distinguish and discriminate.

        again the goal is to unify.

        Difference in perspectives wouldn't interfere with laws (in would actually make the rules stronger), as i said they would be right regardless of peoples experiences and environment.

        Freedom of religion could still occur under the universal code as long as the religion doesn't cause harm to others.

        Happiness has nothing to do with more, and if you mean more as more material possessions then that is not true happiness.

        Are you saying that happiness infringes on equality?
        • Mar 16 2012: Yes, happiness is not only relative in terms of material. If happiness was not at a relative level, then, all people would reach a certain level of happiness, do nothing, and die because he or she reached infinite satisfaction. In other words, happiness infringes on equality because it makes people always want more. Differences in perspectives are likely to cause social traps because each person might be against the other person's perception, and will try to change that person's perception. This in return goes against your initial goal. Distinguish and discriminate are separated by a very thin line because of the previous argument. Either way, equality for all people is literally impossible because each of my supporting arguments are true. If you have any support for your idea, I would like you to note it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.