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

This conversation is closed.

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.

  • thumb

    Zack K

    • 0
    Mar 16 2012: Zared,
    First off i don't your getting what i mean by happiness (and probably many others), it has nothing to do with material possessions, nor does it have to do with needing more after it is attained. I also think that your confusing greed and materialism, because after all money doesn't mean happiness so nether does having more. I still don't understand what exactly your argument is.

    "happiness infringes on equality because it makes people always want more"?
    No because happiness has nothing to do with the wanting of more.

    "happiness is relative"
    True, but nobodies happiness should be at the expense of another.

    " Distinguish and discriminate are separated by a very thin line"
    No because one is racism and the other is to, like you said, distinguish people like Abraham Lincoln from George W. Bush.

    "Differences in perspectives are likely to cause social traps because each person might be against the other person's perception"
    Social traps as you put it, are inevitable, the solution to those problems is to show that the different perspectives (as long as they are within the basic code of ethics) are not that different. Therefor there is no need to impose anything. And they can be solved by the court of law.
    • Mar 17 2012: Happiness is totally connected to wanting more because happiness is not at a fix point. This is not greediness, it is simple human nature. A utopia is no place because people will always feel gratified only temporary after suppressing his or her expectations, neutral since happiness is not infinite, and deprived after realizing there is always more. This is known as adaption-level phenomenon. True, happiness should not be at the expense of another person, but it happens anyway because the world is not just. Discrimination is not necessarily racism but in-group bias, favoring the in-group over the out-group, which is only accomplish by the act of distinguishing the in-groups from the out-groups. As mentioned before, the world is not just, so the court of law can be bias to one party and suffer from social traps. Your idea is ideal for it holds no objective foundation. In other words, it needs to be realistic instead of optimistic.
      • thumb

        Zack K

        • 0
        Mar 17 2012: i think that you are being pessimistic not realistic. What your saying is that everyone -not just a few- pursue "happiness" at the expense of others (not very realistic). I am saying that as a whole man can overcome corruption and greed. Peoples insecurity with their current status or position is not a point of happiness. And if you believe that you never reach happiness, because you are always chasing it, then that is a sad life.

        Your so called realistic statements are dis proven by the existence of charities, non profits, and many other selfless actions that people do all the time.

        And once again distinguishing is clearly different from racism, and your in groups and out groups are based on your assumption that we need to have in groups and out groups to survive. And also the assumption that all bias will lead to conflict.

        Obviously primitive humans would need to compete for dominance and a primitive survival, but we are a lot different now.
        • Mar 17 2012: Bias is the foundation of conflicts. It is arrogance. I never said happiness comes out of selflessness nor did I say that happiness is impossible to reach. In matter of that statement, I actually said there was no level of happiness to reach for happiness is at a relative level. Charities are out of the desire to fulfill the happiness of others. In return, the desire is fulfilled and the people, who worked at charities, are filled with joy. This joyfulness would not last forever because these persons are not robots. Emotions come and go, but it is not impossible to enjoy these feelings when they come. We need in-groups and out-groups for a variety of reasons such as to have theory of mind, which enables use to distinguish oneself from others; attachment, which enables us to trust others; and identity, which enables us to gain one's sense of self. I never said happiness always come at the expense of other, but I did say that happiness "can" come at the expense of other because the world is not just. Distinguishing is the foundation for discrimination. What I meant was that discrimination is not just racism, it is simply favoring your own group in a delusional matter. We are more of the same, different than primitive humans, but in the end, we are more of the same. I am not being pessimistic, your idea is a utopia, which is impossible to have as a working society. Think realistically about human nature.
  • Mar 16 2012: One can begin with a single ethical rule: "You are free to do anything you want as long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of others."
    Of course, such a system rapidly runs into the problem of governance, because resources are not infinite. For instance, the idea of shared goals and communal best interest trumping individual freedom quickly arises. This is why libertarian ethics often start to look like anarchy, in my view.
    We are members of society, like it or not, and therefore we need rule of law to keep chaos at bay. Then: who writes the laws, and who interprets them, and who enforces them? Pretty soon, though you start with properly chosen representatives and judges and police, you end up with a lot of the problems we have seen for millennia, with corrupt rule by the rich and powerful. There are powerful natural forces working to this 'equilibrium', that is, a servile society. I truly respect social democracy for its egalitarian achievements, and recognize that this does not come without some significant 'letting go' of individual freedoms, by very evolved citizens.
    My point is that without significant social conformity (absent in the US, for example) we need the 'hand of God' or some real 'grownups' (socially evolved and responsible people) to manage the disputes and egregious schoolyard behavior taken up by those who selfishly pursue their own interests even when it damages the interests of others. And without any grownups in sight, we in the US pursue every vice with abandon and little direct accountability, resulting in war and greed and all that well known nasty behavior... without grownups, you'll never get the citizenry to accept any proposed code of ethics, no matter how well crafted.
    • thumb

      Zack K

      • 0
      Mar 16 2012: I agree with you on the problem of interpretation and enforcement. That is, in the end, the fatal flaw of all form of laws and government. But I think that there is a solution,
      maybe a basic computer judge (without bias or greed) or something.
      But I do think that eventually the common citizen will begin to look for some kind of code of law that protects them even from their government
  • 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.
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2012: I support your view and respect you advocting your truth be well.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2012: Also in regards to the subtleties, think some discrimination is appropriate
    No right or freedom is absolute - they should be balanced to benefit the human life experience.

    E.g. age discrimination is fine for drivers or pilots licenses etc because there is a reasonable rationale for not having 4 year old driving.
    E.g. you can smoke and drink but don't pollute my air or drive a car while intoxicated
    Even freedom of speech is not a license to slander or libel someone.
    • thumb

      Zack K

      • 0
      Mar 12 2012: That is true
      So in order to solve that problem the order of the laws should made to mean the value of the law, then things such as the examples you listen could be solved.
      Human life is held higher then freedom of actions such under aged driving therefor the person must be of an appropriate age so as to minimize the risk of death as a result of driving.

      In a public place pollutants can cause health risks which supersedes the polluters personal freedom to smoke.

      Then the value of life is equal for all humans so sex's and races will be equal, and over time the discrimination will subside.
      And as long as tribes and religions can still practice thier own beliefs while abiding to these laws, this may sound like imposing beliefs to them but most religions that have survived threw the ages show bits of reason which can be used to support the abidance of these fair laws.

      In the end some commonality would be a way to speed up the process of unification
      • Mar 12 2012: No, races and sexes will never truly be equal for we always want more than the other. Happiness is subjective, but it never levels down.
        • thumb

          Zack K

          • 0
          Mar 13 2012: The view of races being subjective is only true if you differentiate between races, if their is nothing to separate them by then they cannot be separated. If we eventually unlearn discrimination then their wouldn't be any reason to make one unequal.
      • Mar 13 2012: Look, if humans could not distinguish in-groups from out-groups, then they would be cognitively disabled, so it is pretty much impossible to make people unlearn discrimination. The only way I guess is to create a common goal for all people, but even that, the rationale for achieving this goal is different for all walks of life.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2012: Zack, I'm optimistic humans have moved in the right direction overall, but not everywhere equally.
    Think we are a long way from agreeing even on the basic aspirations:
    Equality of sexes, races. Not discriminating on the basis of sexuality.
    Rights of the child.
    Freedom of and from religion etc.

    Suggest it is easier, yet still very hard, to focus on improving our own societies.
    With increasing interaction with other communities, the ideas and aspirations may slowly diffuse.

    Suggest the most backward areas are the most tribal, least exposed to enlightenment values, often poor, or in the grip of backward religions, the least secular governments etc.

    I think many religions hold as back from improving the human condition. Often tightly interwoven with sexist and tribal vendetta cultures.

    I support getting rid of all the monarchies and entrenched dictators and family dynasties too. We all human, just some are born into wealth others poverty. Why reinforce the negative.

    suggest each society needs to move in its own time. One day we might come close to acceptance of similar values based in equality, freedom and representation etc

    The universal declaration of human rights is pretty good. Some will argue about what makes these views better than others. I happy to debate any point in regards to equality and freedoms to aspire too.
    I'm yet to hear a compelling argument against equal rights for women or freedom of religion etc
    None are absolute. The tricky ethic issues are when so called rights or aspirations clash.
    E.g. Freedom of religion is fine until it starts hurting other people or impinging on their rights or other values etc.
    Suggest if we looked at an ethical framework of what improves the human condition overall a lot of discrimination is easily challenged.

    Also I think rights are man made or decided not natural or divine.
    A right to bear arms is a human value judgement not something absolute
    A right to housing and fresh water is a worthy aspiration not absolt
  • Mar 11 2012: We are more like wolves than lambs. There is no just to create a universal code of ethics for we would rather come at each other throats than to combine together into some unholy being of pure optimistic abomination. Moreover, creating a universal code of ethics, will bring back social Darwinism because not everyone will believe in this code and follow his or her own code. Those people are not wrong in doing so because one set of codes cannot simply cover a long range of social norms and culture values, unless of course, you honestly think that the world will combine into one being which will be horrific in more than one way. Then again, I could be wrong, so please, explain your idea more in depth.
    • thumb

      Zack K

      • 0
      Mar 11 2012: You bring up a good point, yes there will always be people that go against the norm, but as in social Darwinism this is just a part of the evolution of our society, to challenge the norm and make it better.

      Part of it is that the universal code of ethics would fit underlying values of many if not all religions and cultures, and even if they don't this universal law would not interfere with any reasonable religious or cultural practices. I think of it as the first step to eventual world wide unity.

      Close to a formal agreement on natural rights, and the consequences of breaking these laws would be the immediate and full retort of the world against the law breaker.
      • Mar 11 2012: Guess what, the law breaker is you. The world you speak of is a mimic of Orwell's 1984. Damn be the world that destroys what varies people. This universal law will not make families, only destroy what differs. Keep in mind, how much people "love" the different and how much they love themselves.
        • thumb

          Zack K

          • 0
          Mar 12 2012: These laws will be nothing close to limiting, unless somebody loves murder or something else that is detrimental to society. I would think this system of laws would let people become more connected and open to uniqueness and expression.
      • Mar 12 2012: That is of social norms, not all that does is abnormal is maladjusted, and pointing differences even when highlighting similarities will do the opposite of your desires.
        • thumb

          Zack K

          • 0
          Mar 16 2012: You should reword that.

          but if your saying that showing similarities would somehow cause more differences to arise, well i don't see how that would happen