Note: this is copyrighted material, all rights reserved, written by Antistoicus.
Before we continue, I'd like to introduce something that I'd like to call the Uniform Base Code of Morality. What it is, is a proposal for a minimum set of ethical imperatives, that all codes of ethics that we are to view with respect, must contain. As it is a set of minimal requirements, one should not expect that, by itself, it will be adequate to resolve very many specific moral disputes, if any. That is not what it is for.
What it is for, is this. It forms a dividing line, of sorts, separating
the dissenting or misguided from the ill intentioned. Of course, we are
always in the first category, right? 
It seperates those we discuss
matters with, from those whom we discuss in their absence alone.
But do we really feel comfortable writing such a thing?
Some will say that the very notion is arrogant. They will say that we should view all as being open to discussion with all. But, if a would be pickpocket would take your wallet, do you feel obliged to have a debate with him on the merits of the establishment of property rights, before refusing it to him? Some people, through their actions or attitudes, forfeit their place at the table of discussion, and each of us, in freely deciding who to talk to, decides for himself who they are. So, decide for yourself if this code seems a reasonable one.
Let us note that it is a relatively neutral one, religiously speaking, its prohibitions being ones common to many faiths. The arguments on behalf of it, and the precise explanation of it, are original here, but the demands it makes go back for millenia.
It is only natural for one to desire completely open inquiry. But discussions have to begin somewhere, if they are to go anywhere.
A few values must be taken as givens that our discussions proceed from. Without the first six as common ground, any sort of philosophical or moral discussion becomes an exercise in futility. The last is necessary for the preservation of a base of experience that will be necessary for the implementation of the first. If there should seem to be some overlap in our discussions in the aside, it is not present without reason. These values can not be cleanly separated.
If we discard one, we lose all of them.
Some will pretend to approach these things from a universal and impartial perspective, as if they could step outside of their own vantage points. I will offer no such pretension. My grandmother was French to the core, and nobody ever doubted whose grandchild I was. But, while I wouldn't mean to suggest that any one culture should ever become universal, I would maintain that some of the traditional values of my own subculture have more than a little universal merit.
- Enlightened Benevolence. The strong desire to see all allowed the opportunity to live their lives happily, and fully, enjoying the good things in life - including oneself ...
When one gives advice to another, one must always view that person as an end in himself, and have his best interests and his wishes at heart, when speaking ...
- Limited Egalitarianism. Equality of rights, not outcomes ... a recognition that noone occupies a privileged position with respect to the moral structure of existence ...
- Civility. By this, I do not mean an unwillingness to ever grow hostile, no matter what, or to refuse to go along with what others want - that is docility, not civility. Rather, it refers to a reluctance to initiate hostilities.
... we would be adopting a more traditionally Mediterranean conception of it. When an outburst comes - the question is not whether it happened, but how. Did the person spontaneously yield to mounting frustration, after restraining himself, the anger pulling him away from calm, as he made the effort to pull himself back? Or, does it seem, that instead of trying to restrain his anger, that he attempted to enhance its expression, and use it as a rhetorical tool, trying to "win through intimidation"? Did he lost his temper as a matter of human frailty, or through design?
The former we understand, the latter is intolerable.
- Tolerance and True Freedom. After a few decades of widespread Social Engineering, this has become a difficult concept to make clear, sometimes .. What if that person has been so heavily conditioned, from birth, to believe that something is her duty, or something desirable, that she has never had the chance to sit down, clear her head, and decide independently, for herself, what it is that she believes, or wants? ...
So, what is freedom? What is tolerance?
A short answer, is that true freedom comes, when the opportunities exist to live out choices that are an expression of one's true inner nature, and desires, NOT when those choices are a reflection of one's conditioning, which one is directly or indirectly blocked from examining.
These first four values, taken together, we shall term "enlightened civility", which in fact we see to be one virtue seen from four different perspectives.
Sad to say, it has generally tended to be absent. "Discussions" in many places have become little more than series of recitations of cliches. Each is afraid that the others will 'get in his face' (ie. attempt to intimidate him into silence, by attacking him with such a display of viciousness, as to provide a feeling of impending violence), or spread rumors at his expense, if he disagrees with the group consensus, which is to be held by all with a hate filled dogmatism, or else.
Question : "So what would you suggest doing about it?"
. Answer : Click here
Three more waiting to be discussed :
Continuing with our main discussion ...