Ethics can be a sticky subject, full of grey areas and unnecessary dogmatism. Religion and ethics aren't necessarily the same thing, so Bob's cautions are worth noting.

The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," makes a good foundation for an ethical system. Applying it to the reader's extreme examples, the deconstruction might go like this:

- Can I kill baby humans for sport?
Would I want someone to have killed me as a baby, or any of my babies, for sport? Definitely not, so I shouldn't do that to others

- Take anything I want that without paying?
Would I appreciate someone taking my stuff (aka "stealing")? Nope, so I shouldn't take other people's stuff.

- Rape women?
How would it if someone tried to rape me? I'm a man, but I still wouldn't appreciate being forcibly violated, so I have no business forcing myself on someone else.

And so forth and so. Simply practical, the Golden Rule, without regard to religion or creed, covers the majority of ethical situations individuals face.

Do I 'impose religious values on employees as an implied condition of work'?

I might just do that, I certainly expose them to my values. all of my employees certainly know my religious beliefs, they all know that I will not work on Sunday nor will I ask them to except under the most emergent circumstances (I've never asked). Profanity isn't tolerated in our workplace, nor is racism or any implication thereof. We allow employees generous time off to volunteer their time for charity and relief work. We couch decisions about business decisions about what is 'right' and 'wrong' vs just how we can make the most money. Our employees have been trained to never lie to a customer and they've been there when we've told the truth that cost us a bundle of money.

This is living out your values. Our employees don't have to have these values, but we do expect honest behavior, just treatment of others, clean language in the workplace, etc. These things make this a pleasant place to work at the very least. At the best it is a place where the God we serve is honored as well.

Religion is the 3rd rail of workplace discussions... I am worried about the looming move to make the public square a religion-free-zone, while at the same time inroads by Islam are allowing public school children and adult workers time away from class or work to attend daily prayers. Also special foot-washing stations installed in schools and workplaces at public and corporate expense. Seems like both practices (exclusion of Jewish/Christian and inclusion of Islamic) are against the "American Way". I have read the quotes from our Founding Fathers and it seems we are veering away from what they had in mind for this Republic. I wouldn't mind other's beliefs as long as I was allowed to openly live my beliefs.

Ray Martin, you are clearly "coming from a good place" with your examples of the Golden Rule, but it has some famous flaws. For one thing, it is the most "morally relativistic" rule of them all!

Don't believe me? Try these questions:

"Would I want person X to insert portion A of their anatomy into portion B of my anatomy?" Certain people would answer with an enthusiastic "Yes!" I don't want to get graphic but I think you know what I mean.

Apply the Golden Rule to this (because I would like it done to me, it's OK for me to do it to others) and you get an OK for some behaviors that many people would feel are very objectionable, if not immoral.

Here's another question: "Would I like my neighbor's wife to come over in the dark of night as I'm relaxing on the couch alone, and seduce me?" Again, the answer might well be an enthusiastic "Yes!" But to apply the Golden Rule (I'd like it, so it's OK to try seducing her/him), using it as a license to sneak into your neighbor's house and attempt to seduce them, is clearly flawed.

Turning away from sexual morality, here's another question: "If I had never heard the word of The Lord, or if I had heard the word but ignored it, would I want someone to come show me the light?" Many believers would say "absolutely yes!" Apply the Golden Rule (I'd certainly want it, more than anything, so it's OK for me to go around preaching) and you get a license to proselytize.

It turns out that there are very many examples, ranging from war to politics to interpersonal relations, in which applying the Golden Rule doesn't work.

Ethics are rules derived from Virtues and Virtues are innate attributes of pure mind. In other words, there are no rigid rules per se that are absolutely ethical. Circumstances can dictate an action as ethical or unethical depending on how the circumstances are understood. The more closely the understanding of the circumstances reflects reality as such, the more clear the ethics.

Understanding this rests upon being able to precisely model the mind, and that is a difficult thing indeed. What this means is, the only way to prove that there is an objective basis of Virtue as the foundation of ethics is to show an accurate model of the human psyche as it reflects reality. For that, you would need to be an Ichazoan Integral philosopher, and there are not many of those in this world.

The anatomy questions are rather bogus, based on a strictly singular interpretation of the golden rule. The actual interpretation is that _everybody_ else also acts on that rule so it isn't _only_ what you want, the 'doing unto others' includes others' points of view so your action is a product of the intersection of your desires and their desires, not just an opposite of your personal perversities or preferences. Assume the other people have their own thoughts and desires, not your thoughts and desires.

Bob sez: "As a source of personal values it can be a marvelous force. Or a dreadful one, depending on the religion and its interpretation, of course."

Hmmm. That is a rather absolutist, judgmental statement, isn't it?