My original post posited the need for a values-system in a "post-religious" age. The great thing about 'religion' (as known in the West) was its ability to educate to certain values (either through promise of reward or threat of punishment). I have one criterion to judge the usefulness or necessity of the values you have all suggested: is this value essential to being a good person? In other words, is it impossible to be a good person if you do not subscribe to this value?

I believe (and please shoot me down if you disagree) that one can be a good person without demonstrating independence, personal responsibility, a willingness to work and perseverance. Certainly they are positive values and much to be desired in a person [sigh], but I do not think that they essential and that without them one is a villain etc.

I think that love, trust and faith are not values in this sense either. If our objective is to 'be a good person' in a post-religious age the litmus test will surely be how I behave towards other people: I can behave 'nicely' towards them in the absence of love. While I certainly should trust in my own values I do not have to trust someone else in order to treat them 'nicely'. If by faith one means religious faith its inclusion in this list is self-defeating; if we mean faith in other people surely that can sometimes be misplaced and should not be a universal rule. If we mean faith in ourselves is this any different from trust?

Most of the other values suggested do seem to be 'behaviour' values and every single one of them would be a wonderful trait to possess: respect, honesty, compassion, empathy, patience, ability to share, tolerance, humility, hope, caring, understanding, blindness to others' faults, acceptance of people as they are. But are they essential? While they are all indications of the goodness of a person's heart would their absence make it impossible for him to be a good person?

One suggestion was "bedonebyasyoudid". I strongly object to this. One of the greatest problems of any ethical system is to answer the question "why do bad things happen to me if I am a good person?" According to "bedonebyasyoudid" if something bad happens to me it must be because I deserve it: this is nonsense. Just think of the people we know or have known on this board who have suffered at the hands of others through no fault of their own! (If there is one lesson that everybody needs to be taught it is that not always is life fair.) (The book of Job in the Bible spends 40 chapters discussing 'why do the righteous suffer?' and does not come up with a reasonable answer. Also, in a 'post-religious' age the idea that suffering in this life will be rewarded in another is not acceptable.)

This leaves "doasyouwouldbedoneby". This seems to be an admirable value, a core value, and - most important of all - a value which is educable: you can teach it to people. Personally, I agree with George Bernard Shaw that "the golden rule is not 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' - your tastes may not be the same". I think it is safer to express this same thought in the negative: never do to someone else something that you would not like them to do to you. (It would help enormously in the implementation of this rule if people have respect, honesty, compassion, empathy, patience, ability to share, tolerance, humility, hope, caring, understanding, blindness to others' faults, acceptance of people as they are.)

So, before I take this discussion a stage further let me ask whether you disagree that in a coming 'post-religious era' the essential value that must be taught as a guide to human inter-relationships is "never do to someone else something that you would not like them to do to you"?

I apologise that this post is boringly long. Over to you, now.