[lodi]

> I have one moral standard to which I hold myself and others: do no harm.

Right, but who determines what's "harmful"? Is it more harmful to punish a child or to not punish him? Is a cartoon of Jesus harmful? Muhammad? Are "micro-agressions" actually traumatic?

Furthermore, what does it mean to "do" something? Is "meat-eating" a default state, or are you actively "doing" harm every day you continue to not be a vegan? Are you "doing" harm if you purchase some sneakers without knowing whether they were produced in a polluting or exploitative manner?

---

I'm personally not a moral relativist; I think there are better and worse answers to most of the issues above. But I've just found that short commandments like "do no evil" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" don't really offer any real guidance when tested against challenging real-world ethical problems.

[yosito]

> Right, but who determines what's "harmful"?

Well, it's certainly not determined by some objective standard, or a god. Every culture, and even every individual has different moral views. When I say "do no harm" that's a relative statement, relative to the context and parties involved. What's morally apporiate changes depending on the moral contract between parties. I can call my drinking buddy a "fucking idiot" for making a mistake, and there's no harm done. But if I call my grandmother a "fucking idiot", it would harm her a great deal. What's harmful in one context may be fine in another. Morality is like an instinct that humans have evolved to allow us to detect when something may be considered harmful to ourselves, our partners, our community and our planet. It's not always an infallible sense, but it's often pretty good and useful to pay attention to.

Back to your question: who determines what's harmful? Our innate sense of morality has evolved to show us what's harmful and what's not. The more each of us focuses on listening to and improving our own sense of morality and harm, the better we'll be at making decisions that avoid harm as a society and as a species. Ultimately, I'm a humanist, and one of my favorite quotes about morality is GK Chesterton's response when asked to write an article answering the question, "What's wrong with the world?". His response, "Dear sir, I am."

One reason I don't concern myself too much with the morality of others, is that the only person's morality I am responsible for determining is my own.

[pessimizer]

> Our innate sense of morality has evolved to show us what's harmful and what's not.

Who is this "our" and "us" you're referring to if everyone has a different sense of morally? Are you talking about the evolution of a "culture" or of "every individual." If these are all different, why would their "evolutions" have the same goal?

This all seems very empty. What's the difference between what you've said here and "all people have different moral frameworks, and they all follow those" (which I don't think is possible to dispute)?

[yosito]

Our/us refers to humanity. I'm a humanist. Though I suppose other species also have evolved a moral sense.

[kashyapc]

Richard Dawkins once used the word "humane-ist" (and humane-ism) to be considerate of other species. Though I like the idea, the word feels a bit "stretched"; I don't know why. (Maybe it's the humanist in me that's speaking :-))

[marginalia_nu]

Indeed, it seems the first struggle should be to develop the ability to do the things we think are correct before even considering that the most correct thing is.

If you sit around developing elaborate ethical systems as to how to act in every situation, but fail to live that system, then it's ultimately a pointless waste of time. It's better to a decent guy all the time than a hypothetical saint acting like a practical asshole.