Ataraxist ethics follow from our core principles. Ethical matters are often extremely complex. Highly inflexible or dogmatic systems of ethics prove to be unhelpful when one tries to apply them to the complexity and situational relativity of various moral dilemmas. Because of this fact, Ataraxist ethics are not highly systematized—that is, they are not formulated into a rigid moral theory; rather, we voluntarily strive to uphold several ethical commitments that are based on our core principles. These commitments are highly inspired by, and somewhat adapted from W.D. Ross’ prima facie duty ethics. The Ataraxist commitments are:

1) Non-maleficence — striving to not cause suffering, to not inflict unnecessary harm on any sentient being. (Note: This commitment should take precedence in most situations.)

2) Active compassion — to do what is in our power to alleviate and prevent the involuntary suffering of all sentient beings, to protect them from unnecessary harm, and to practice solidarity.

3) Justice — to strive for maximally fair and free relations, on the individual and societal level. To work toward a society that is based on Ataraxist core principles and ethical commitments. 

4) Beneficence — to promote the happiness, wellbeing, actualization, and flourishing of all sentient beings.

5) Fidelity — allegiance and solidarity with those with whom you have a relational, ethical, or moral connection; acknowledging the importance of maintaining trust, supporting shared values, and upholding the well-being and interests of individuals, communities, and causes you hold dear. Loyalty also includes a commitment to honor commitments, promises, and responsibilities to the best of your ability.

6) Reparation — seeking to rectify one’s previous ethical mistakes in whatever way is possible or practical.

In a situation that requires ethical decision making, we must do our best to choose the path that is most in line with these commitments — preferring the course of action which maximizes the commitments upheld, or the course which compromises the fewest of these commitments. In the case of situations where there is a conflict of commitments, we recommend deferring to the higher ranked commitments as a general rule (for example, it is more important to prevent / alleviate suffering [2], than it is to increase happiness [4]). However, in many situations this prima facie ranking of duties may not apply. Each situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The negative formulation of the golden rule (“Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated”) offers an elegant heuristic for implementing the first commitment, as does the positive formulation (“Treat others as you would like others to treat you”) for the second, third, and fourth.

Final notes on ethics: utilitarian decision procedures present a way to arrive at ethical decisions in extreme cases, however, we find many problems with using a utilitarian calculus as a general approach to ethical matters. In cases where there is a conflict between the Ataraxist commitments, a negative utilitarian calculus might be helpful as a way to determine the best course of action.

With regard to Justice: we are in agreement with the position of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, which asserts that the only valid reason for restricting one’s freedom is to prevent (serious) harm to others.

All of the Ataraxist ethical commitments should be taken to apply to oneself as well, and we must always attempt to balance our self-interest, and the interests of those closest to us, with our commitment to help others. Where this balance lies will depend on a number of highly variable and personal factors. We must always consider that we cannot do much to help others until our own essential needs our met—for this reason, we must give first priority to our own essential needs (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs).