Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybarbara
hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt.... 
I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic. |
If we put the destruction of homo sapiens sapiens on one side of the scale and the continued existence of that species on the other side of the scale, then yes we can certainly call it a code of ethics. I also see it as efficiency. If we want the species to continue in such a way that there is steady technological/scientific and economic progress, then we also have to realise that social progress must come with it, for oppression does not attain any of these things in an efficient way for the
long run. History has told us this over and over again.
In that case, there is really a distinction to be made between this code of ethics which, one could argue, comes down to efficiency, and the traditional definitions of morality which places morality/the act of being moral itself as the objective. We should also note that there is a distinct way in which traditional morality holds anything which opposes it, and that's what I was getting at in the last post.
Traditionally (when we consider the moral systems of the late Romans or the Christians, though particularly of the Christians), when one is a "moral being" one then has a "moral/divine/whatever" right to accuse a supposedly "immoral" being of being just that. This accomplishes absolutely nothing and becomes a pointless argument of "no you!" ad nauseum. By calling for greater "morality" within society, we are only calling for another man-made system that should not be questioned. We should be doing precisely the opposite, and asking society to actually think and analyze why they think the Occupy Wall Street movement is made up of "horrid commies omg," and why they refuse to do anything when the government and government-affiliated bankers continue to abuse the common person. Ask them to think outside what they consider "moral" and "immoral." Instead of asking a person to follow a "moral compass," it demands that people think for themselves.