world can't go on like this!
Please sign the
Universal Ethic's Campaign
Forum on Universal Ethics
The opinions posted are by the Internet users, not by HumanRightsAction.org. Comments
off the topic
, simply copied, ignoring prior content, irrelevant, abusive, advertising, discriminatory, or contrary to the law, will be partially or fully deleted. Focus on the topic, be short, and do not write all in capital letters. Good advice
Don't hurry, rethink your post and publish it only the next day. For messages and queries use the contact form please.
Antigua and Barbuda
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Union of the Comoros
Democratic Republic of Congo
Federated States of Micronesia
French Southern Territories
Heard Island and McDonald Islands
Iraq-Saudi Arabia Neutral Zone
Northern Mariana Islands
Papua New Guinea
Saint Helena and Dependencies
Saint Kitts & Nevis
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sao Tome and Principe
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos Islands
United Arab Emirates
United States Minor Outlying Islands
US Virgin Islands
Wallis and Futuna Islands
2016-01-24 00:46:57, Spain
Thank you, William (Bill) Henderson. Commenting your entry I would like to remind that the universal code is based on natural law (and developed/discovered by means of intuition, research and reason), as discussed on 2014-01-05. Otherwise it would not be universal.--- The code is valid for any specific situation. However, the code cannot enumerate specifics as this would invalidate its universality and practicability (see 2014/06/06 and 2014/03/05 Part II). Specifics are the field of specific (relative) ethics and common law, not of a code of universal ethics. Moreover, there seems to be no need for a complex system of ethics to guide human choices and actions in general.--- The code does not require the homogenization of humanity to be valid. A code that requires homogenization is not universal. --- The democratic principle in the code is not based on utility. It is derived from human dignity (principles I and II, see 06/06/2014). If the foundation of the democratic principle would be utility, the code would not be universal. In terms of utility dictatorship sometimes is even better than democracy.--- I do not think that the code itself needs more. What is needed is spreading and teaching it - for the moment possibly just as an aspired objective, to facilitate acceptance - at the schools of all countries. Public legislations then will adapt to the code over time. This implantation process can take up to 3-4 generations to completion (75-100 years). So we should start soon.
2016-01-11 14:51:53, United States
The proposed Universal values are valid but such code seems to require a process for extending to the specifics of any particular issues between any particular combination of cultures or interest. In that, globalization becomes an in situ structure for that issue and no other homogenization is needed. Democracy, rather than being a value in its self, is one utilitarian tool to hone the relativism in a situation to the absolutism appropriate for the issue. But, that alone offers no fundamental assurance of logic or objectivity in the results. More is needed ....
2014-08-06 17:17:55, Spain
In reply to Skeptic:
Those commandments are the essentials. Their combination enables derive other commandments not expressly listed. For example, the combination of commandments 2) y 3) gives: Do not defraud / Do not corrupt!
Commandment 1) applies not only to human individuals, but, by extension, also to human groups and societies as a whole. It is the rule of reprocity, the "golden rule", the most basic norm which regulates the relations between people in absence of empathy, and reflects nonviolence, the human rights and the democratic principle. It is modified, though, in order to allow resolve certain situations, such as when a judge has to put someone in prison for breaking the law. Commandments 2) and 3) are basic norms that are crucial for transparency, trust and security and thus for the peaceful coexistence of people. Commandment 4) protects the life and integrity of humans, animals and plants, the most basic right of every living being. But it doesnâ€™t say â€śDo not killâ€ť since that would exclude all life that depends on organic alimentation, would exclude defend us against microbes and assassins, and would exclude issues like voluntary euthanasia. Since animals and plants are included in this commandment, it leads over to Commandment 5) that protects nature (and thus environment), because it is the origin and foundation of our existence. Note that it does not say â€śpreserve natureâ€ť because this would exclude feed us from nature or destroy a meteorite that threatens earth.
2014-08-03 13:39:43, Nigeria
Why those commandments and not others?
2014-06-06 01:47:16, Spain
In reply to Curious:
A code of universal ethics is the mother of all human ethics, as already explained on 2014-01-05. From the universal ethics arise specific ethics, which as such are relative in terms of evolutionary context, culture, philosophy of life, etc., and therefore cannot be universal, e.g. professional ethics, bio-ethics, business ethics. In this concept fit also other ethics approaches such as virtue ethics, utilitarian ethics, discourse ethics, pragmatic ethics etc.
With respect to the principles of universal ethics:
Principle I refers to the dignity of the human individual, that is, to his liberty. When agreed on (itâ€™s already in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), it is the origin and end of any human ethics. Principle II regulates the situation when there are two or more individuals, restricting the unlimited liberty of an individual in relation to his next (rationale of equality and justice). And Principle III regulates the relations in an organized human community. It is the democratic principle and a logical consequence of principles I and II.
2014-05-23 09:30:28, Malaysia
Hello Dr. Enno Winkler... I have chosen a writing topic on Professional Ethics, and I stumbled upon your forum as I looked up \"Universal Ethics\" and Wikipedia.
As interesting as you ethics guideline may sound, your normative, minimalist ethics is not that effective and convincing unless there is explanation to why those principles are centralised in the ethics, and how those values are important for the benefit of all. Of course, this is just an assumption made because I do not know what other resources you have provided which I can study more about the universal ethics code,and I do not imply that the universal ethics code should be descriptive, but I believe it deserves description and illustrated examples in various situations to prove itself as universal and valid, without being exclusive. Except Einstein\'s Law on Nuclear Energy, although it is not really an exception, everything idea proposed should have backed-up proof.
2014-03-05 16:24:40, Spain
Part II of the reply to Marian Dumitru:
You also raised the question that you could not find other universal moral codes on the internet. Though there is a lot of excellent stuff on ethics online, this is because core moral codes are inherently impossible when not complying with two basic prerequisites: be normative and not descriptive, and be minimalist and not maximalist. Descriptive ethics are lacking practical consequences. And maximalist ethics that attend to all aspects of each human existence exclude universality. â€śBecause the more ideas or practices are specified in detail, the more ideas and practices are omitted, contradicted or distortedâ€ť (Tore Lindholm).
Thus, what indeed was missing so far was the leap to normative core ethics, that is, to a code of universal ethics.
2014-03-05 16:22:22, Spain
In reply to Marian Dumitruâ€™s post on Astroethics:
The universal ethics code expressly refers to (biological) human beings and would be valid for these also when living on the moon.
On the other hand, I suppose that intelligent beings outside of our habitat but in a similar scenario within our universe would have similar biology and therefore similar ethics, since the material and biological bases (see possible bacterial fossils in meteorites) seem to be the same.
In the case of intelligent life in parallel or intruding universes, e.g. dinosaur-like vegetal beings made from antimatter, the religious and philosophical ethics created for humans would presumably be unsuitable.
Though astroethics is an interesting issue, I believe that ethics on earth are more necessary and more urgent to work on right now.
2014-02-05 00:22:24, Romania
greetings dr. winkler. i congratulate you for this ethical endeavor. i am currently getting my masters degree in ethics in bucharest and i came across your \"universal ethics\" proposal when searching the internet for any kind of universal moral code. i could find none but this...
i would be very thankful for any chance of finding out more on your ideeas on this topic.
i do my research in the field of astroethics (that is any moral issues that arise from encountering any alien life form).
2014-01-18 20:00:35, Mexico
No problem with Christianism either: