Talk:Secular ethics

The article Darwinism already exists, of course. I consider Darwin's findings and the consequent -ism to have been a major factor in secularisation. Though 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' (which are not the same as the 'Law of the Strongest') can be cruel and do not seem ethical by itself, precisely the perception of such being a problem to the mind of humans has made them:

1. wonder where our sense for ethics comes from, and

2. think again about where to draw ethical conclusions from.

I'm more of an 'original research' type than one who familiarizes oneself with the publications by philosophers or moralists, let alone their biographers, though I suggest there should be something from this line of thinking in the article Secular ethics. —— SomeHuman 2006-07-30 04:59 (UTC)

Very interesting, I suggest you contribute with what you can in that vein and we can work from there! Star Ghost 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By Darwinism, do you mean the theory of evolution or social Darwinism? Evolution has nothing to do with secular ethics. Social Darwinism is metaphysics or teleology. The only "secular ethics" I know of that reject ought is Positivism. "That which is natural is right." This is Ayn Rand via Aquinas. I consider Positivism a (quasi-)religion. "What would Ayn Rand do?" Secular ethics cannot rely on authority, or they would just be another religion or quasi-religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The definition given here is that "Secular ethics comprises any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural."

Blogger "Crude" complains in "Secular Crimes and Religious Crimes" that this article omits the secular ethical codes followed by some criminal organizations. Examples are the Russian-originated "Thieve's Code" and the Sicilian Mafia's Omertà and "Ten Commandments". Also, according to our Wikipedia, the Japanese Yakuza are known for their strict codes of conduct. The fact that these secular ethical codes clearly exist (or existed) must be at least mentioned in this article. Criminals' codes are of course used to cement in-group loyalty in order to obtain power and profit at the ultimate expense of everyone else.

A more respectable secular group, the American Medical Association, has an official code of ethics, violations of which can result in losing one's license to practice medicine. Our Wiki article mentions some criticisms to the effect that in the past it seemed to value physician pocketbooks over public health.

Major engineering societies also publish ethical codes which are considered binding by some state licensing boards. --71.174.174.177 (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair points. As to the "definition", it is unsourced, and will eventually need a source—which will probably modify its wording somewhat.

I see no reason why any secular ethics code cannot be added to an encyclopedia article. However, before someone did a lot of work adding and sourcing more examples, I'd suggest that the definition and limits of the article be clearly identified in the lede first. There are so many organizations out there with secular ethics codes, that a fully developed article here might eventually summarize them by type, only noting a few examples. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Boy Scouts, with their requirement of theistic belief, can be considered as a group whose ethical code can be considered "secular", surely the Freemasons can also be so considered since they have a similar requirement but do not advance any particular creed, even prohibiting religious discussion at their meetings. --71.174.161.150 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Boy Scout section was removed some time ago. What specifically in the article are you referring to? --Airborne84 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your own argumentation above; I had not checked the current state of the article. Sorry! --71.174.161.150 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your interest, and please consider contributing further to the article itself. It needs a lot of work. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Querendo traduzir é só brotar aq. 2804:14C:5BB3:8BED:88F1:F7B3:7DB8:E551 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)