Brandt -

When you ask "...are there any moral values or ethical codes which are universally agreed to by all humans," I'd say that Susie's mention of UN Human Rights Conventions is an excellent attempt to do so. Leisa's reference to "Do unto others," though contingent as noted by Robin, seems to summarize the notion of trying to do 'the right thing,' which seems to me means having at least some consideration for others, as those human conventions wish to foster. I would like to think that this consideration for others comes from a universally held moral principle, though many may argue it has simply evolved as a survival mechanism for "civilization," that is, those who banded in cities for mutual protection over the course of history. But I feel that just having a moral code that attempts to address issues of right and wrong is at least something that various societies have in common. So perhaps it is universally agreed, or nearly universally agreed, that one should have a moral code, and that in itself is a universal moral value. But don't look for too much consistency. Even within a given society, moral/ethical values seem to be applied hierarchically. For example, many may think it 'wrong' for a member of a street gang to take up arms against members of other street gangs, and yet applaud an effort to set that person straight by giving such a person the choice of going to prison or into the military. Does that just mean the size of the 'gang' is what matters? Is it wrong to attack others in your village, but honorable to attack someone from another village? What I mean is that it is difficult to consider codes of conduct that may be globally applied, when they are at odds even within a given culture.

Rather than specific universal rules of ethical/moral conduct, perhaps what we should strive for first is at least the recognition that there should be some 'inalienable rights' we should all, at least in spirit, wish to bestow upon each other. As imperfect as it could be applied, perhaps "Do unto others..." is the right spirit. (By the way, that sentiment, I think, is nowhere found verbatim in the bible. It is a sentiment that may indeed be universal.)

Cheers - Jim 

Prohibition of murder and theft are universal societal values, for a human society could not form without them.  I do believe in universal ethics because moral relativity is logically flawed.  For instance, if it is true that ethics are only relatively true, then is it not true that moral relativity is also relative to itself?  Moral relativity requires its own moral truth (that all morals/ethics are relative), hence the argument defeats itself.  This is no major discovery, as many philosophers have already pointed this out.  However, given that this is so, I believe that because moral relativity is untenable, then their must be a source of universal moral values.  The only problem remains in identifying them.  I argue that universal morals/ethics are based in a realm of 'sentient necessity'...That without sentient life and it's societies therein, there would be no need of ethics.  However, I do also agree with Aquinas when he argued for 'eternal laws'...

Agree with Nicholas on prohibition of theft and murder seem to be universal societal values although the context of how these are seen may differ also across society.  Perhaps the one I think applies more broadly is - Do Unto Others as you would have them do unto you. Most societies have some version of this.

There is also a broad consensus on the right to water and to food.

Universality of values though is difficult to achieve given different histories, cultures and experiences. And we just dont often know enough about other cultures to really judge - a lot of what we know is second-hand and filtered through the eyes of someone else.

Dear Brandt, dear Nicholas,

it seems to me that you, Nicholas, have to be careful to distinguish values and legal systems. That murder and theft are prohibited by legal systems does not (at least not logically) entail that the right to live and have property are ethical values. There might very well be an empirical (i.e. contingent) connection, but this has to be demonstrated.

The claim that defending the relativity of moral or ethical values is logically incompatible with itself might neither be valid. It would only be true, if the question whether moral or ethical values are universal or not was itself an ethical question. And it must be demonstrated first that this is in fact the case.

I don't feel competent to answer your question, Brandt, but a first step towards answering it could be asking what the adequate level of description must be: which unit must we talk about when we attribute particular values to it? (This question works similar to asking what the unit of selection is in evolutionary theory). I think we can exclude on safe grounds that the individual person is that unit.

Dear Brandt: I think Human Rights Conventions are ethics codes that set a ground of moral and ethical principles that almost all humankind share. But we also have to bear in mind that we cannot speak about morality if there's no freedom, No one can say to be acting on moral grounds when he's coerced by someone/something else (Law, Religion or whatever you want to name it). Because, as argentine constitution states  there should be a  personal sphere where each one of us can make it's own moral decisions (whether good or bad) with the only limitation of not interfering in an arbitrary way in other's personal area (the right to privacy or the right to be let alone). And that's and ethical principle that Argentine Constitution regards so important that should be recognized by Law.  Our Supreme Court calls it "the respect for each personal project of life". 

Best. Susie.

Even if there is agreement on some moral issues within human societies, that would not in itself establish the existence of universal ethical principles in an absolute sense. Nor would it imply that the most universal morals arfe adequate. Here's an example of what could happen even if Leisa's "do unto others" golden rule were rigidly followed. Imagine that aliens arrive on Earth with plans of colonisation. According to their way of thinking, lifeforms who know how to live sustainably without polluting a planet have more right to inhabit a planet than those that do not. There need be no violation of the golden rule: if a yet more advanced civilisation planned to colonise the home planet of the Earth's invaders, they would have no hesitation in making way for them by moving elsewhere (such as here!). That option, however, would not be available to us as we lack means of interstellar relocation. So, in this example, the cherished golden rule might rather abruptly lead to the deindustrialisation or extinction of human civilisation. I doubt that once an invasion is underway people would be reassured to learn that there has been no violation of the golden rule. What's more, yet more sinister situations can be quite easily envisaged even if everyone abides by this same moral code. BTW, I remain open to the possibility that the golden rule might be one of the sought-for examples of an absolute, universal ethic, but I think there are better ones (though not necessarily popular here).

Brandt -

When you ask "...are there any moral values or ethical codes which are universally agreed to by all humans," I'd say that Susie's mention of UN Human Rights Conventions is an excellent attempt to do so. Leisa's reference to "Do unto others," though contingent as noted by Robin, seems to summarize the notion of trying to do 'the right thing,' which seems to me means having at least some consideration for others, as those human conventions wish to foster. I would like to think that this consideration for others comes from a universally held moral principle, though many may argue it has simply evolved as a survival mechanism for "civilization," that is, those who banded in cities for mutual protection over the course of history. But I feel that just having a moral code that attempts to address issues of right and wrong is at least something that various societies have in common. So perhaps it is universally agreed, or nearly universally agreed, that one should have a moral code, and that in itself is a universal moral value. But don't look for too much consistency. Even within a given society, moral/ethical values seem to be applied hierarchically. For example, many may think it 'wrong' for a member of a street gang to take up arms against members of other street gangs, and yet applaud an effort to set that person straight by giving such a person the choice of going to prison or into the military. Does that just mean the size of the 'gang' is what matters? Is it wrong to attack others in your village, but honorable to attack someone from another village? What I mean is that it is difficult to consider codes of conduct that may be globally applied, when they are at odds even within a given culture.

Rather than specific universal rules of ethical/moral conduct, perhaps what we should strive for first is at least the recognition that there should be some 'inalienable rights' we should all, at least in spirit, wish to bestow upon each other. As imperfect as it could be applied, perhaps "Do unto others..." is the right spirit. (By the way, that sentiment, I think, is nowhere found verbatim in the bible. It is a sentiment that may indeed be universal.)

Cheers - Jim 

In his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant stages a ius cosmopoliticum (cosmopolitan law/right) as a guiding principle to protect people from war, and morally grounds this cosmopolitan right by the principle of universal hospitality. Kant there claimed that the expansion of hospitality with regard to "use of the right to the earth's surface which belongs to the human race in common" (see common heritage of humanity) would "finally bring the human race ever closer to a cosmopolitan constitution".[10]

The philosophical concepts of Emmanuel Levinas, on ethics, and Jacques Derrida, on hospitality, provide a theoretical framework for the relationships between people in their everyday lives and apart from any form of written laws or codes. For Levinas, the foundation of ethics consists in the obligation to respond to the Other. In Being for the Other, he writes that there is no "universal moral law," only the sense of responsibility (goodness, mercy, charity) that the Other, in a state of vulnerability, calls forth. The proximity of the Other is an important part of Levinas's concept: the face of the Other is what compels the response.

For Derrida, the foundation of ethics is hospitality, the readiness and the inclination to welcome the Other into one's home. Ethics, he claims, is hospitality. Pure, unconditional hospitality is a desire that underscores the conditional hospitality necessary in our relationships with others. Levinas's and Derrida's theories of ethics and hospitality hold out the possibility of an acceptance of the Other as different but of equal standing. Isolation is not a feasible alternative in the world, therefore, it is important to consider how best to approach these interactions, and to determine what is at stake for ourselves and the others: what conditions of hospitality to impose, and whether or not we have responded to the call of the Other. Further, both theories reveal the importance of considering how best to interact with the Other and others, and what is at stake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

Thanks for the interesting and well-considered answers.  I framed the question in an effort to avoid asking about absolute vs relative bases for morality.  I think that consideration inevitably leads to a conflict between those who base their ethics on their religion and can claim divine authority.  Even Aquinas's "eternal law" is just his renaming of the mind of God.

Many people take "do unto others" as a universal value, even if in the form of Kant's Categorical Imperative or Rawl's original position, but I think it is problematic.  It can only be a universal code if all cultures believe everyone is equal.  However, cultures with a monarchy, or which oppress women, or caste systems, appear to accept it is ok to treat people differently.

Not killing other people is clearly not a universal code.  Every society I can think of has a system for determining when it is OK to kill people.  The best we can say here is that societies do not allow for killing other humans for trivial reasons.  

I suspect all societies value honesty, though.  As far as I can see, the only values which are universal are the ones which are necessary for a society to function - we need to be able to trust what others say if we are to live and work with them, and societies don't survive if everyone is randomly violent to everyone else.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is often taken as a statement of universal values, but it seems to me many of its articles disagree with many codes.  For example: 

Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

- many religions forbid marriage outside the religion, and so do impose limitations due to religion or race

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

- there are a number of religions which would disagree with this, considering it a sin for someone to leave the religion (apostasy)

I don't think humanity can agree on a basis for morality or ethics, so my aim is to see if we can at least find some concrete codes which all can agree on, irrespective of the basis for those codes.

Brandt -

You have the following: "I don't think humanity can agree on a basis for morality or ethics, so my aim is to see if we can at least find some concrete codes which all can agree on, irrespective of the basis for those codes."

I don't think that "do unto others..." can be legitimately claimed by any religion. Many may think it is in the bible, but i don't think so, and i would be surprised if it isn't something universal, just expressed differently. It seems it is a code, and can not be justified to be applied differently to different segments of any society. That it is not applied evenly and with the help of laws does not mean that many people do not believe it a code of conduct to which they should adhere. Thoreau 's Civil Disobedience is a good example of holding morality above the law.

So, let's consider this from the phrasing of your question: "Irrespective of where any system of ethics or morals comes from, are there any moral values or ethical codes which are universally agreed to by all humans, which can be found in all systems? If so, what are they?"

I'd say that the sentiment of "Do into others...," though it needs a better title to avoid assuming it comes from any one source, is as universal as it gets, with regard to human ideals. Is it part of all legal systems? Not really. All systems likely fail in numerous ways. But if you are looking for either a specific code that many people agree with, regardless of culture, religion, geography, etc, or a general guideline, I think this comes as close as you can get. Is it universally applied? No.

Let's give this another name. How about "Respect one another" as a universally recognized moral value, though not evenly accepted by any legal system. As Thoreau notes, legal and moral are not synonymous. Also, many people feel that groundless discrimination is acceptable, so you cannot say that mutual respect is an accepted standard by all people (nothing would be acceptable to all), nor is it really 'the law of the land' anywhere, but it is as close as you may ever get to an answer to "What if any ethical or moral values are universal?" Many individuals may not really have a clear moral code, and all legal systems are amoral or immoral in some ways, and a lack of mutual respect for all may be a big part of all societies, but that does not disqualify "respect each other" as a moral guideline that cuts across culture, nationality, etc. We just do not do a good job of it, and it sometimes becomes so repressed that society becomes decayed. But I think that in general, a repressive society changes, or becomes the means of its own extinction.

"Mutual respect," or however you want to phrase it, will never be a principle that is perfectly /evenly applied, and might be considered more of a general guideline than a specific 'law,' but it does have much cross cutting appeal.

Jim 

six universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics are proposed including: (1) trustworthiness; (2) respect; (3) responsibility; (4) fairness; (5) caring; and (6) citizenship.