The Moral Compass Project:
our common moral compass
"The highest principle is without words. Yet if there were no words,
how could the principle be known?" Inscription from China dated 764 CE.
"If there are no clear and provable moral values
which we can all agree on and share, then how can we prevent future evils
performed by individuals or governments on the rest of us?"
Dave Robinson 2
"Then we'd know. And we could think about it
properly instead of just guessing and being afraid." Philip Pullman
The necessity of a clear Moral Compass:
More than ever a clear Moral Compass is regarded as a
necessary benchmark for ethics. It is a personal bulwark against a morally
relativistic society and a way of creating trust between individuals and
communities by providing an ideal and authoritative code of conduct. But
what exactly are these fundamental ethical principles that codify the Moral
Ethics are now big business. It is almost impossible to
open a newspaper, turn on the television or the radio without hearing
various religious spokesmen, moral pundits or political leaders all
complaining that there is a lack of moral imperative in society. There is a
broken Moral Compass and societies standards are declining as never before.
They constantly make an appeal for a common unifying framework of ethics and
call for the promotion of fundamental shared values throughout society as a
basis for moral reasoning and the rejection of faux moralism. They argue for
the upholding of universalizable values as a glue to hold society together
and re-assert their damming criticisms of both individuals and a society
that don't abide by a clear Moral Compass. They claim that society is
becoming "de-moralised" and the promotion of an ethical society is more
important and urgent than ever before.
The entreaties are by now all to familiar:
"...fundamental, shared values...",
"...a clear commitment to shared morals...",
"...a common framework of ethics...",
"...some workable common ground of values...",
"...a core of common ethics..."
There is a constant call for a unifying set of core
principles. Not simply for ethics in a generalized sense, but for clear
fundamental principles that can be codified and applied as a benchmark for
ethical decision making.
The lack of agreement on what a Moral Compass is:
But, when these pundits are asked "What is the Moral
Compass?" suddenly it becomes an "unwritten rule" with all the
consequent dangers that an unwritten rule presents. They insist there is no
such thing as a codified list of fundamental ethical principlesand
everything is just moral relativism.
Moral relativism is a trap as it recognizes no such thing
as ethical "knowledge" at all. It proposes there is a wide variety of moral
beliefs and practices which vary not only through time, but between
different cultures, races and classes, It claims that "each persons morality
is a matter of their concern" and there are as many perfectly valid moral
positions as there are individuals." It also alleges that it is impossible
to prove which morals are "right" and which are "wrong".
The British Philosopher, Walter T. Stace (1886 - 1967) put
this issue into perspective over half a century ago:
"Certainly, if we
believe that any one moral standard is as good as any other, we are likely
to be more tolerant. We shall tolerate widow-burning, human sacrifice,
cannibalism, slavery, infliction of physical torture, or any of the thousand
and one abominations which are or have been from time to time, approved by
one moral code or another. But this is not the kind of toleration we want or
The result is, individuals and society are being heavily
blamed for not acting with a Moral Compass and then at the same time being
criticized and told that it is risible to think that a codified Moral
It is argued that we have no respect for ourselves or for
others as independent free moral beings. That we as individuals, now believe
that we inhabit a moral vacuum where there is no firm foundation for moral
concepts. There is no Moral Compass, and no authentic moral framework for
making value distinctions. We are left with nothing except a feeling of
isolation, powerlessness, an absence of moral awareness and a lack of a
shared experience and social solidarity. There is nothing but a post-modern
culture of narcissism, devoid of any real moral framework for making value
distinctions. It is claimed that the existence of a Moral Compass is quite
simply a myth.
The suspicion that we do not have clear moral values and
everything is just moral relativism encourages a deep-rooted culture of
suspicion in society and a consequent lack of basic trust between people.
Attempts to constantly extend mechanisms to make people more "accountable"
founder, because without personal moral accountability, we are reduced to
doing what we are told and we in turn do not trust the people doing the
telling. The consequence of not being trusted is that we become less and
less trustworthy and the downward spiral continues.
Anti-ethical messages in society:
The reason for this is that there are
several clear anti-ethical messages being powerfully promoted throughout
There's no such thing as fundamental ethical principles at all.
Ethics are not about fundamental principles, but are merely a series
of indeterminate, inconsistent, largely cultural guidelines for arriving
at a personal and arbitrary decision.
The concept of fundamental ethical principles is simply not important
and is all rather silly because it?s just cultural conditioning.
Ethicists and philosophers argue that
there is no such thing as fundamental ethical principles at all
but then have difficulty in saying much else. They can't say they are:
declining, need to be taught, need to be promoted, society doesn't have
them, or anything else very much, because (obviously) they don't exist. Even
discussing the idea of fundamental ethical principles is regarded as
The ethicists and philosophers argue, that
ethics are not consistent, they are merely arbitrary beliefs constantly
changing according to the sophistication of the individual, time, politics,
religion, culture and place. They are simply a function of national
ideology. Ethics are simply another word for enculturation.
They argue that even if there were such a
thing as codified ethical principles there would always be so many
exceptions to any ethical principle to make any principle invalid. The
principles will also contradict each other in any ethical situation. Ethical
principles are as such impossible to codify and any attempt to do this will
only lead to collapse of any such principle when all the multifarious
exceptions and contradictions have been pointed out.
Despite this, there are ethical
organizations that purport to have a Moral Compass, but only in single word,
generalist and totally non-prescriptive terms. For example, one says the
Moral Compass is: "Fairness, Honesty, Respect and Responsibility"
while another says, "Have Respect for Life, Deal Honestly and Fairly,
Speak and Act Truthfully, Respect and Love One Another", while another
says, " Love, Peace, Right Conduct and Non-Violence" while another
says, "Integrity, Responsibility and Forgiveness" while another
says, "Wisdom, compassion and Courage"... all of which shows a
remarkable lack of agreement.
The result is that the necessity of
standing by ethical principles is substantially undermined by the lack of
any agreement on what these ethical principles actually are.
The power of fundamental principles:
If the argument is to be made for a unifying set of core
ethics that can be shared and understood, they require to be
codified. The necessity of clear codification is exactly the process
undergone in the creation of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. It was
necessary to codify them in order to act on them.
The "power" of the UN Declarations is in the fundamental
nature of the Declarations themselves. It is possible to argue about the
implementation of Human Rights and the successes and failures of their
promotion world-wide, but no individual or organization has seriously
proposed another competing list. There are no alternatives or rival
Universal Declarations of Human Rights. The UN Declarations are
Human Rights. Because as they are fundamental, they are almost
impossible to challenge as they provide an established benchmark. The
principle is exactly the same with the Moral Compass.
It is to address this fundamental gap in ethical
understanding that the Centre for Defined Ethicswas formed.
Existing shared values:
It is a fact that human societies do share
values, a fact demonstrated each time we come to the aid of one another in
times of trouble. Moral relativism is contradicted by the facts on the
ground. Despite all arguments to the contrary, it is obvious that people do
understand what is meant by morality. In all societies, people intuitively
understand what "common decency" and "good citizenship" mean and show
impressive qualities of altruism, generosity and compassion towards one
another. We act as if we are moral beings and we co-operate to further the
interests of others, assist in times of trouble and play fair, otherwise
there would not be families or societies. We do this not by instinct but by
doing what we do consciously. It is the direct result of the way we are and
having the freedom to choose. Human beings are unstoppably communitarian. In
all civilizations, there is a fundamentally constructive consensus on how
interconnected and independent we are. This together with a sense of our
shared human experience leads directly to a commitment to universal values
that are not imposed by outside political forces but are simply fundamental.
What are fundamental ethical principles?
Working from this basic assumption I created the Centre
for Defined Ethics and embarked on a five year, wide-ranging consultation
with numerous ethical, philosophical, religious and citizen groups both in
the UK and abroad, to ask the question, "What are fundamental ethical
From the very beginning I found that there is
a remarkable and broad ranging agreement, regardless of class, creed or race
on the basic axioms on fundamental principles around the world: a real
shared Moral Compass exists. Few people or organizations could articulate
all of the principles together, but consistently the same fundamental
principles were raised time and time again. These are what society already
believes are fundamental ethical principles, these fundamental
principles are already our shared Moral Compass. Largely unrecognized
these are the principles that are holding society together. Societies across
the world already have a sense of shared identity on this list of
fundamental core ethics that have been discovered and identified, not
created by the centre.
The intention is that the Moral Compass is about Personal
ethics, or how we as individuals aspire to conduct ourselves towards one
another. Business ethics, Environmental ethics, Medical ethics,
Confidentially ethics, Animal ethics, Communication ethics, etc, are
separate categories all drawing inspiration from Personal ethics.
This is covenant of the Moral Compass we already have.
These are the standards of a civilized society.
Accept responsibilities for personal actions and the consequences of those actions.
Practice a duty of care.
Affirm the individual’s right to self-determination.
Put the truth first.
Never use a person as merely an unconsenting means to an end, even if the end benefits others.
Treat others as you want to be treated yourself.
Leave a positive legacy to future generations.
The list seems so obvious and familiar because these
are the shared principles we already have. They are not merely
about a consensus but a benchmark society already shares. These principles
are fundamental, not arbitrary. These principles are the
antidote to moral relativism. In the increasingly pluralistic societies of
the modern world this is the moral cement that binds us all together. It is
a powerful vehicle for social cohesion because it puts individual
responsibility in a shared social context where we can all celebrate a sense
of ourselves and a victory for human dignity.
Society is at a critical ethical cusp, for if we fail to
recognize a clearly codified code of core ethics, we are doomed to repeat
the inevitable vagaries, ephemeral restraints and conflicts of moral
relativism. Now is the time to celebrate and build on this existing ethical
infrastructure. By promoting a firm foundation for core ethical concepts and
fundamental shared values between people, a codified Moral Compass
encourages a strong social sense, promotes trust, unity and an
What we are trying to do:
At present the Centre is only a small
group with limited funding but I am looking to expand its activities in the
To establish the Moral Compass as the world-wide de
facto benchmark for fundamental ethical principles.
To establish the Moral Compass as the benchmark for
To support people and organizations in the process of ethical decision
How you can help
I am now looking to invite people with a solid background
in ethics and citizenship and an ability to think 'outside the box' to help
create an advisory "Think-Tank" with the remit of expanding and developing
the concept of the Moral Compass as a vehicle for social cohesion
If you or your organization is interested in supporting
the concept of a codified and common Moral Compass, please write to the
Adrian Bishop, Principal
Centre For Defined Ethics in Plymouth
14 Old Park Road,
PLYMOUTH, Devon, PL3 4PY
The following information sources were
used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not
necessarily still active today.