I outlined a system of morality in another thread, in the hopes of countering cultural relativism, that goes like this: morality is "a set of moral axioms of the form "x is right to us" or "y is wrong to us" that can be used to judge concrete behavior and represent what behavior is considered by the majority of humans to be good or bad for any person under specific circumstances, and any new rules that arise from the application of these axioms." I added the "any new rules that arise from application of these axioms" bit for this thread, for reasons I'll detail later.

I'll describe the process by which the statistical moral axioms are derived: One takes the group of those that believe that a certain behavior is good or bad for any person under *specific circumstances* to include people in every culture that share this belief and make it the numerator in a ratio. If one then makes the denominator the total number of people in humanity, given the ratio is greater than or less than 0.5, relative to humanity, the behavior can be judged either good or bad according to the resultant axioms, which are of the form “x is wrong to us (us being humanity)" or “y Is right to us". While these might seem to be descriptive claims, they express what we are permitted to do. Thus, also because the consensus finding process expands the correctness of the moral beliefs of the majority to be correct for everyone, the axioms are moral statements about what is acceptable for humanity and are action-guiding for everyone.

This, I think, avoids some of the pitfalls of cultural relativism, mainly the criticism that it provides no absolute standard for all humans. Under the morality I outline the axioms that result from the consensus are absolute and can be applied to any human(s) anywhere.

The "any new rules that arise from application of these axioms" part now comes into play: one might argue that axioms are unnecessary; one could just derive the statistics and create a single moral imperative. This would not work: one cannot have a statistic for every situation. Furthermore it could lead to discrepancies and contradictions due to the fact that humanity's consensus changes. In fact, the actual consensus might be invisible to a certain degree without frequent referendums, and the statistics could constantly be at odds with this invisible consensus. However, if we have axioms baked into our morality one could apply them to different, unforeseen situations. Even further, one could come up with new abstract rules via rational discourse and the established statistical axioms that could guide our behavior.

A flaw in this system is that those who disagree with the consensus and plan to act immorally because of their immoral beliefs are obligated to terminate their membership in the group humanity. This is because it would remove their immoral belief and thus prevent them from acting immorally. But take heart! The majority of humanity could just vote that people shouldn't be terminated or exiled for having immoral beliefs, even if they plan to act on them. Not to mention eliminating people with unpopular opinions wouldn't make the majority opinion more correct; if the majority of humanity votes that a certain behavior is moral in certain circumstances then this behavior is as right as it will get.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in this morality is that the axioms that the ethical system is built upon are not derived via reason.

I welcome criticism!