Because morality is such a broad spectrum, the context of morality is the most important angle to consider when examining this idea. There is no possible way to engage someone who, for example, is a born-again Christian and get them on the same page morally as someone who is a Unitarian Universalist. At least, not theoretically. In living color, we all have skeletons in our closet and have committed acts of unreasonable selfishness and questionable moral character. These skeletons live in the closet though and do not see the light of day, especially when a theoretical discussion ensues. After all, we must be right in order to be right!
But, if context is king, then the only way to level the playing field is to find something common by which to compare morals in religious/spiritual terms and ethics in humanistic terms. In the animal kingdom or the earth's biosphere, ethics or morals do not exist. Therefore, I cannot look there for any comparable, possibly objective, point of view or standard of relationship. Natural selection is just a fact of life. Species are genetically predisposed to it. There is no question whether to have offspring or lay eggs. It is the reason for existence. Humans, however, are a bit differently evolved. The brain and the conscious choice makes us more individualistic and less satisfied with simplicity.
Morality and ethics do have a few undeniable, unshakable common threads which run through 99% of history though. "The Golden Rule" seems to be a good place to begin. This edict is universal:
BAHA'I: And if thine eye be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself —Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p.64
BUDDHISM: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. —Udana Varga 5:18
CHRISTIANITY: In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. — Matthew 7:12
HINDUISM: Do nothing to your neighbor which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter .—Mahabharata
ISLAM: None of you is a believer if he does not like for his brother exactly that what he likes for his own self.—Hadith (Bukhari)
JUDAISM: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman.—Talmud, Shabbat 31a
ZOROASTRIANISM: Do not unto others all that which is not well for oneself.—Shayast-na-Shayast*
The doctrine of treating others like one wants to be treated is easy to understand; a simple principle by which to guide one's own behavior - in general. Of course, if I have to break up with someone, and this is unavoidable, the Golden Rule's application is exercised in the way in which the breakup is carried out Do I text it vitriolically (not nice!) or sit down, buy him coffee, and break it to him sweetly? Of course, this is an easy choice.
But in the messier, secret life details of one person feeling love for another outside of a marriage, one who needs love as well, is the Golden Rule to be imposed in the general sense ("don't do it") or in the detailed ("do it discreetly")? This is a not a simple choice anymore.
Every relationship has secrets. Sometimes secrets that remain secrets are the actual glue in a relationship. "Ignorance is bliss" comes to mind. The specific case which has led me to examine this issue may, I believe, be sitting in this garden of sticky, gluey slime holding in balance the lives of all involved in this love-trine. The healing energy I sensed - the holding in balance - is delicately and deliberately preserving a rose among the thorns. The essence of that rose - the beauty, the fragrance and hope it represents is the only thing you can see. The thorns are barely there, like those skeletons in the closets.
*this section from www.interfaith.org
