Mutuality.org - let's create a humanist ethical code

[zvi]

I was very excited to discover these forums today and hope to be an active user - keep up the good work everybody!

Mutuality.org has the same humanist goals as these forums but we are hoping to take it one step further providing a wiki to develop a secular ethical code (a purely voluntary code of course). The word "mutuality" hints at the Golden Rule and collective ownership of the ethical code. If an open community can create Wikipedia, why not a secular ethical code (to provide a purely human and humanist answer to religious scriptures).

Mutuality.org has been started by a group of secular Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem (although I'm an ex-pat Brit and ex-orthodox Jew myself). It's purely not-for-profit of course and we're very keen to get feedback and participation from humanists worldwide (or even just a Facebook like of our home page).

Zvi

[Sel]

Hi zvi
There are many Humanist declarations available. All have strengths and weaknesses.
You might like to read The Code for Global Ethics - Toward a Humanist Civilization by Rodrigue Tremblay. He has developed what he calls "The Ten Commandments for a Global Humanism. Very interesting, IMO.

[zvi]

Thanks - will definitely read that. Our idea is slightly different though - a wiki where a broad community can debate and draft the ethical principles (Wikipedia style). Seems to me to have more legitimacy if the ethics are drafted by a broad and open community. Thoughts?

[Dave B]

Beware of committees!

I think it would be better to trawl the existing humanist sites and make a composite of the "credos" and ethical aims they espouse. Many of these will have been "borrowed" from other sites or from books, essays etc. but that is legitimate, it may form a consensus.

Forming any kind of group to come to a consciously constructed consensus is in danger of containing artefacts that really do not belong there. That is if consensus if ever reached at all! As has been said before, herding cats may be easier.

[zvi]

Well fair point, but I am greatly encouraged by the wonderful articles on Wikipedia! The idea is not committees but a more open process.

[Dave B]

Well fair point, but I am greatly encouraged by the wonderful articles on Wikipedia! The idea is not committees but a more open process.

Yes, but there will have to be so kind of arbiter/chair and/or votes/decisions will have to be taken/made on which items are included or excluded, what things really mean - unless I am missing something in your idea!

By trawling the existing choices you will probably get a good approximation of the international structure of humanism as those people would like to practice it. It may be that the "credos" are the work of one person, but usually based on existing ideas (our very own Athena has written an excellent example*) they may be the ethos of a group - but there is a consensus in there if so.

It would be interesting to see if nationality causes any variation in a common theme or if Humanism is truly international.

* Later: ah, found the link

[thundril]

Hello, zvi! Glad to hear your Israeli-Palestinian group exists! We need more such courageous groups in conflict zones.
I think the idea of opening out the discussion about humanist (ie secular) ethics is great. Count me in!

[zvi]

Yes, but there will have to be so kind of arbiter/chair and/or votes/decisions will have to be taken/made on which items are included or excluded, what things really mean - unless I am missing something in your idea!

By trawling the existing choices you will probably get a good approximation of the international structure of humanism as those people would like to practice it. It may be that the "credos" are the work of one person, but usually based on existing ideas (our very own Athena has written an excellent example*) they may be the ethos of a group - but there is a consensus in there if so.

It would be interesting to see if nationality causes any variation in a common theme or if Humanism is truly international.

* Later: ah, found the link

We have no argument - I'm definitely in favor of using existing ideas as a starting point (subject to being careful about copyright - mutuality.org is copyright-free but some of the sources you mention are not). But then I think an open wiki is the way to go. As you probably know Wikipedia functions well with no need for arbitration or votes in most cases.

[Dave B]

As you probably know Wikipedia functions well with no need for arbitration or votes in most cases.

I agree there, Zvi, except Wikipedia deals with facts (and I have had to change some "facts" that someone wrote about the village I live in that were totally incorrect!) What you propose is less concrete and, though I accept that the basic precepts of humanism are common there are always those who feel they know better than others in such flexible subjects.

Will anyone be allowed to edit the project, as in Wikipedia? If so what happens if there is a dispute between two, or more, "editors"?

I should emphasise that I like the concept.

[lewist]

Not only is there Athena's excellent example, but there is a recent discussion here on defining Humanism.

The more time we spend trying to define Humanism the less time we have for the one life we have. It's like Professor Gandleweaver's Fish Frying Academy (gold star for anyone who can give the source and explanation of that reference) or Xtians discussing how many angels can boogie on the point of a needle.

Personally, I'm content to have Ingersoll's aphorism and get on with life.

[zvi]

Will anyone be allowed to edit the project, as in Wikipedia? If so what happens if there is a dispute between two, or more, "editors"?
I should emphasise that I like the concept.

I don't have all the answers yet. But yes the starting point is that everyone is allowed to edit and in case there is no concensus both views should be documented. Hope to have you involved!

[Tetenterre]

It's like Professor Gandleweaver's Fish Frying Academy (gold star for anyone who can give the source and explanation of that reference)

It's a major distraction from everything else, Uncle.

Personally, I'm content to have Ingersoll's aphorism and get on with life.

+1

[zvi]

It's a major distraction from everything else, Uncle.

Personally, I'm content to have Ingersoll's aphorism and get on with life.

Umm, so I'm curious why you hanging out in the Positive Humanism forum at all?!

[Dave B]

Umm, so I'm curious why you hanging out in the Positive Humanism forum at all?!

Hmm, how many definitions does "positive" have in this context?

For me "positive humanism" is that which is practised in everyday life for the good of oneself and others and has aspirations for the future. It does not include definitions of what humanism is.

But, despite liking your project, I have to ask, "Do we really need an internationally agreed definition?" I have read the definitions on many sites on the web and find that I agree with almost every item in them. Then I go and do my own thing.

[Tetenterre]

Umm, so I'm curious why you hanging out in the Positive Humanism forum at all?!

Well, even ignoring your apparent complete missing of the point of the "Uncle" comment , I'm curious (a) why you find it necessary to question the choice of other users of these forums and (b) seem to have some notion that just getting on with life is unworthy for a humanist .

[lewist]

Gold Star for Tetenterre for understanding the reference. As a young teacher I was very fond of J P Martin's books.

Tt I'm not sure if the question from Zvi was for you or me.

If me, then I am a regular and long standing member and I take an interest in everything that goes on on the Forum. This forum is an important part of my life, a source of fun and interest as well as friendship. I don't always post but I do look to see what is going on.

Zvi! I feel you are trying to revisit things we have had extensive discussion on in the past. That doesn't mean you can't reopen them in a different way - and the wiki idea may be a good one - but perhaps you could go and read the references you are given. You may well have a different perspective but perhaps you should find out what has gone before.

[Nick]

Hi,Zvi, and welcome to the forum!

I have yet to read the pages to which you have kindly linked us, but already alarm bells are ringing (but perhaps unjustifiably...)

"collective ownership"..... "community".... (ugh!)..."ethical code".... (is there only one?).... "mutuality".... why? "Not-for-profit".... is that always a good thing? I doubt it....


Sorry, Zvi, not the best of starts. Though I'm glad you are at least looking for solutions, and am pleased at your apparent attempt to solve Middle Eastern problems. And to be even more fair, I haven't yet looked at your other pages, which I'm now about to do. But if first impresions count..... Well, those were mine.

I hope I'll respond more fully, but in the meantime, welcome, and hope to see you around the boards!

[zvi]

Hi,Zvi, and welcome to the forum!
"collective ownership"..... "community".... (ugh!)..."ethical code".... (is there only one?).... "mutuality".... why? "Not-for-profit".... is that always a good thing? I doubt it....

Interesting that you singled out those concepts. Mutuality isn't a business - for any kind of ethical guidelines I personally do believe that not-for-profit and ownership by the community are positive things - just look at how Wikipedia works and succeeds (I also own a business - I'm not afraid of private ownership and profit where it's appropriate)

[Tetenterre]

Gold Star for Tetenterre for understanding the reference.

Tt I'm not sure if the question from Zvi was for you or me.

I assumed it was for both of us (plural "you"). But it doesn't really matter who it was addressed to, I believe my questions were pertinent (and are, as yet, unanswered by zvi).

[zvi]

Tt I'm not sure if the question from Zvi was for you or me.

I assumed it was for both of us (plural "you"). But it doesn't really matter who it was addressed to, I believe my questions were pertinent (and are, as yet, unanswered by zvi).[/quote]
I'm not sure I understand you're question. You are very welcome to get on with life and to be a humanist and to participate in whatever forums you choose and I am certainly not questioning you. I thought you were implying that participating in forum discussions is worthwhile while the idea of a wiki effort to codify ethics is not and I'm not sure if I understood you correctly and if so why you make that distinction but then again you're certainly entitled to your definition of what counts as living life :-) and as you said I may be misunderstanding you anyway in which case apologies.