So do we have a good enough list yet?  What is our list?

So do we have a good enough list yet?  What is our list?

     There doesn't seem to be any point any longer. Do you wish to continue to work on the secular list in this thread without the theists?

     I was actually looking to see what they had as well as what we had. Are there any other theists that wish to provide supporting list items?

Matthew

The secular list is as follows:

1. Do not hurt anyone!
2. Do not steal!
3. Do not cheat!
4. Do not be disrespectful!
5. Be kind to all!

What more do we need/want?

     1-4 are restrictive and are attainable. I'm not so sure everyone can achieve number 5. It would be like setting up most people to fail. Maybe you could reword it into a restriction, say,

Ideals listed in this form are often open for interpretation. Take "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as a good example.

     You asked me to define several things, but it is the opposites that I invoked. It is much easier to define disrespect then respect. We made this distinction in the military. Hurt is hurt. If you hurt someone, you have violated your own rule. If one makes an effort to not hurt anyone physically, but hurts people emotionally or mentally, then they are measured as not being as moral as others. This is not going to cause a problem as this is already the way it is. There are others that hurt or even kill people, yet they have their own theist moral value sets.

     The more complicated the rules the longer the list and the more exceptions we'd need to detail.

     Sorry if you consider this commical.

Matthew

I think that is where this secular set goes wrong, it doesn't compel one to action, it just restricts what actions one can take.

     Oh, you are a theist. This must seem really strange to you. How about your Thou Shalt Not Kill? Sounds like it went "wrong" there.

Situation: You are walking down a commercial zoned area and notice a woman fall to the ground and break her leg.  You are on the other side of the street from this woman and you quickly consider what to do, then walk into the store right next to you (one you were planning on visiting).

In this situation you have not hurt anyone and you have not been disrespectful.  Since those together complete your system of ethics you have not been unethical.  Even so, I would argue that you did not take the moral action.  The moral action would be to call 911 and do everything you can for the woman until help arrives.  It would be even better if you went with her to the hospital or followed up on her condition.  Maybe you could contact her family.  However, none of these things are required in the secular set of moral values that is currently laid out for examination.

     You don't need an old book of moral values where the closest story is that of the Good Semariton, who wasn't even Jewish. You are correct in that this situation falls through the test. That was the point of asking for input. Did you think it was written in stone and perfect first time around? It wasn't a list of ethics, it was a list of moral values. I do find your projection of Christian moral values into the situation you dipicted. What was it in the Bible that would get a Christian to help this unfortunately woman? I would, like we always have, rely on empathy. Most have it. We empathize with others in need. Many of us have life experiences where we are in a higher quality of life after having lived the other life. We don't usually forget our pasts. My wife and I contribute to our Portland shelter as it is neutral on religion and does not sponsor prayer. We both used to be poor, we feel the need to help. It does not need to be written down. What would you have us add, "Help others when you feel the urge?" That is the way it is. Do you send money every time you see a starving child on TV? Of course not, you efforts and/or money to a single or few efforts. People do this in all corners of the world, it is not a Jewish/Christian monopoly. It is the shiny side of human nature, it is not all terrible.

In this situation you didn't hurt anyone, you weren't disrepectful (actually, you were respectful of his belongings) and you fulfilled your code of ethics.  However, you did not end up at the most moral action, which would have been to stop and help him collect his belongings.  The secular set of moral values is flawed.

     This in the face that Christians on a whole would do nothing. I went to school with Christians. I live with them. They'd walk over a dead body in some situations. In your testing of my humble starter draft of moral values, you have not proved that the Christian morals are any more effective.

Matthew - Sorry about the spelling, in a hurry.

Sorry Harry.  I do have one question for you though...does "can" mean whenever possible?

How about your Thou Shalt Not Kill? Sounds like it went "wrong" there.
I would appreciate you asking me what my moral value set is instead of telling me.  'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is not part of it.  Even if it was, I was protesting the lack of a call to action, not the existance of restrictions on actions.

I have not attempted to show that any set of values is more effective than what has given, I have only given imput to help improve this set of values.  If you would like more than that, please ask.

I am an Atheist. Homosexuality is wrong becouse it is unnatural. (A boy and a boy can't have kids or two girls.)