Can, and should, human values be considered facts, especially if values are shown to contribute to the overall well-being of humanity?

For example, could the value of compassion be measured as having a demonstrable improvement in individual and group well-being, for both the giver and receiver? This is an interesting question about a universal moral code that Sam Harris discusses in his book, “The Moral Landscape.”

Without going down the rabbit hole of whether moral values can be factual, do we need a universal moral code?

This includes those who want a moral code based on religious imperatives.

However, this juncture is precisely where we get to deal with the issue of dehumanizing morality head-on, which only serves a small group at the expense of others. Without a shared understanding — a way to commune on an even, moral landscape — we risk ever more contention and division. We need to know what we stand for collectively.

We require values that the majority agrees actively respect human dignity.

In upcoming essays, I will share a set of transcendent values based on the wisdom and my interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. I believe these principles are a form of virtue ethics that empower individual values in the service of cultivating a harmonious, accepting humanity.

“Anyone who wants to understand the world should be open to new facts and new arguments, even on subjects where his or her views are very well established. Similarly, anyone truly interested in morality — in the principles of behavior that allow people to flourish — should be open to new evidence and new arguments that bear upon questions of happiness and suffering. Clearly, the chief enemy of open conversation is dogmatism in all its forms.” — Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape (p. 22)