Egad, your question reads like a question for a philosophy exam ✍️👨‍🎓. (And why specifically 3 values?)

• Here's my essential precept for an ethical life which can be taken to subsume all moral values: Just follow the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, or if no others are directly involved, “do what you would have others do in your place”, with the corollary “if what someone else does doesn’t harm anyone, mind your own business”.
• The two factors that influenced me most? Common sense and the hypocrisy of religious people.
• Cultural influence? The possibility of personal autonomy and critical thinking.

Karl Pfeifer Many questions rolled into one. Hmm.

1. Human life is a great good.

2. We must recognize the intrinsic worth of human life.

3. Within the bounded limits of our own lives we must work for the thriving (e.g. flourishing, well-being, eudaimonia) of all human life.

This rationale is axiomatic, or "per se nota". One need not prove it, it is an assumption which is taken to be properly basic. All three points are interrelated.

If we recognize and acknowledge the goodness of all human life, then we have an agreed upon starting point for ethicality.

My two factors are (1) the cacophony of competing voices in modern secular culture, each of which assumes moral superiority and uprightness to be on its side, which demand that one submit to their claims; and (2) the need for a compelling transcultural and transreligious basis for doing ethics.

My culture is once again headed in the direction of eugenics, as it was at the beginning of the last Century. My take on morality is therefore formed in a thesis/antithesis conflict. The American culture of death motivates me to affirm the preciousness (a word surprisingly used by some atheist philosophers to refer to human life) of the human organism across the lifespan.

1. Human life is a great good.

2. We must recognize the intrinsic worth of human life.

3. Within the bounded limits of our own lives we must work for the thriving (e.g. flourishing, well-being, eudaimonia) of all human life.

This rationale is axiomatic, or "per se nota". One need not prove it, it is an assumption which is taken to be properly basic. All three points are interrelated.

If we recognize and acknowledge the goodness of all human life, then we have an agreed upon starting point for ethicality.

My two factors are (1) the cacophony of competing voices in modern secular culture, each of which assumes moral superiority and uprightness to be on its side, which demand that one submit to their claims; and (2) the need for a compelling transcultural and transreligious basis for doing ethics.

My culture is once again headed in the direction of eugenics, as it was at the beginning of the last Century. My take on morality is therefore formed in a thesis/antithesis conflict. The American culture of death motivates me to affirm the preciousness (a word surprisingly used by some atheist philosophers to refer to human life) of the human organism across the lifespan.

1. Respect for human life: it is the basis for normal and peaceful living with other humans and for the thriving of Homo sapiens.

• 2. Work: according to Voltaire, it keeps away three major vices: boredom, crime and lack
• 3. Ecoubuntu: coined by Desmond Tutu, recognition of the chain that connects all living species and the planet.

1. It is not okay to hit someone. If you hit someone then you should expect them to hit you back. Not all human behavior or reactions are good in nature and there are consequences to your actions.

2. Until you know an individual enough to know otherwise, then treat them as you would want yourself to be treated.

3. You are not responsible for the happiness of others; meaning, you cannot make other people be happy. You can help create an environment in which it is easier for others to be happy.

In my opinion, being in accordance to New Testament, the moral values are concentrated all in one, which is the Jesus Christe's saying: "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so them; for this is the law and the prophets." (New Testament, Matthew 7.12, Luke 6.31).

1). Believing that there are things more valuable than your own life or the lives of the people you happen to care for.

--- That the world was a pretty good place before I ever came into it and will be a good place without me after I am gone.

2). Believing that not everyone who came before me was a fool. That some customs and traditions have merit or were based on something valuable at the time of their inception - though I may not understand it at the moment.

3). That culture benefits by having people who "feel" in different ways and hold assorted moral viewpoints. That debates and arguments do not have to be SETTLED and we do not need to always have everybody compromise to the center .... that is, life can go on with some people feeling one way about an issue and others feeling in completely different ways. We even benefit by having a few moral extremists lurking around the edges of society in perpetual discontentment, case we ever need them.

I attach our papers where we answer your questions:

In my answer on this question and at the concept "all in one" for the moral values, in accordance of Jesus Christ's saying, in my opinion, comes that of the Hippocratic Collection motto: " to help, or at least do not harm" (Epidemics I, xi, 10), in relation now to human not to patient.

"Three moral values essential to live an ethical life":

Justice; without justice cruelty will prevail.

Beneficence; doing greatest good for greatest number, doing no harm.

Respect for all living beings rights.

Understanding what we are is no longer enough for us. Human evil is a more or less conscious decision.

I certainly don't want to break your indications and response modalities but my moral sense, and my inclination to the essential uniqueness of ethics as such, push me to respond with a single assertion and a single sense of openness, without further semantic guidelines.

The ethics of the world live ontologically in relation to the quality and tranquility of the breath of children. All possible values ​​are a reflection of the conditions of possibility offered to them in the first act of their epiphanic identity. There is only one value that unites and brings together the hearts of all men. I believe this value is the only one to give an account of the "aporetic coherence" of the uniqueness of existence. The only value so to speak already thrown "always back and forth", "before and after" to our tiring moral thought, the only value that takes into consideration the "inevitable diabolicity of its necessary particularization" is the incoat"gratitude".

Understanding and giving "gratitude" and exercising it fully in relation to the whole of which we are grateful, is the inevitable basis on which to leverage to understand the good. This we do to express our gratitude is the theoretical presupposition to every moral practice. Ethics does not come from the act of gratitude. Ultimately, human evil is the good that is not paid and returned to our donors.

They are self-esteem, Knowledge,and Confidence these all three requirements to live respectfully.

Dr Kamath Madhusudhana

Always refine your business of life, deal only honestly and wait for the mercy of our creator. Evolve and develop by creative study and action, be true to your self and do not sell your identity. Avoid bargaining about religious or political beliefs.

The highest ethical value is life itself and to save life from aggression and destruction (sequence: survival, life, refinement of life).

Solicitude-based self-restraint: I shall not take advantage of whoever weaker and harmless.

Tuning participation: Within my capacity, I do what I can to make this world slightly more difficult for those stronger and mean to take advantage of those weaker and harmless. (compatible with win-wins, with having talented to realize their harmless potentials, and with animal rights; can be practiced in many ways)

Modesty-based self-reflection: I listen to what others say, examine what I believe, and carefully adjust my doings.

If I can follow the above principles to practice, I would be living an ethical life.

Really it all just boils down to variations of the Golden Rule, "do unto others what you would have them do unto you", to which I would add my corollary "if what someone else is doing doesn't harm anyone, mind your own business."

Respect, truthfulness,and elevated spirit.

Values which are indispensable to community harmony and orderly functioning would be compassionate respect for others, a sense of justice, and a commitment to truth telling. I would go as far as claiming that such principles are as close as we can get to moral facts.

In a universe that is objectively meaningless, we create our own meaning in the subjective. We call the most intense expression of meaning “love.” In the final analysis, the meaning of life comes down to “who did we love and who loved us.”

Our lives and our loves can be dedicated to God, to Country, or to Family, and through these social constructs we find our purpose. We can devote ourselves to our own pleasures too, to the love of self, and we find there is real meaning there as well. Having the capacity to travel all these avenues of desire and satisfaction, human history suggests that the fullest and most complete existence would be to include a place in our lives for each of these loves, in balance.

Love is an action in the present, and love is also an ongoing consecration of ourselves to what is worthy over time. Love is the deeper pleasure of doing right in the moment, and love is the happiness found in the expression of passion for something worth living for, forever.

Being dually moral, we must find fault in ourselves and in others. It is unavoidable. We are compelled to distinguish better from worse; to see it and to feel it, and so we must look for it and we must find it. The tall are better than the short, the English better than the Irish, the male better than the female, the black better than the white, the dog better than the cat ... and it must go on forever. It is within us. Though we are compelled to do it, we are also obliged to find this outlook as somehow wrong.

It is a little bit wrong because we are also compelled to see things as being equal, even where any such conclusion is questionable. So we find the prince is the equal of the pauper, men are the equals of women, one person the equal of any other, animals the equals of humans, the sick equal to the healthy, the sinner no worse than the saint. And this too must go on forever, and this also must be found to be not quite completely correct.

Through such internal conflict, we project and create external conflict. With both enmity and collaboration, we struggle to better our world.

This was a quotation from the book Our Human Herds

www.ourhumanherds.com