Welcome to Gaia! ::

I had to vote the third option because this isn't quite a straightforward yes-no question for me. In my tradition of making this more complicated...

You do not need to uphold the specific moral code of the Ten Commandments specifically to be moral. You can have your own seperate code that works just as well, perhaps better for your given culture.

HOWEVER.

The moral and ethical maxims contained within the Ten Commandments are widely considered within the common moral consensus of human beings worldwide. If you look at it from that perspective, than the answer is a yes. Some of the specific points differ a bit but generally the Ten represents something close to our moral consensus, particularly when it comes to things like stealing, adultery, and murder.

I've heard arguments that the Wiccan Rede is a woefully inadequate moral rule of thumb. It is in essence a variety of the golden rule, so I'm not sure if those arguments I heard would then trickle down into all golden rules as a whole.

The problem with the Rede in particular may lie within what precisely constitutes 'harm.' I've heard many arguments citing that it is quite impossible to live without doing harm and that makes the advice of 'harming none' considerably more difficult. Historically, at least in the West, we exercise our rights giving consideration almost exclusively to the human domain. That's coming to bite us in the a** rather hard as of late. So what objects and entities are subject to consideration and which aren't? The general sentiment of Wiccans extends that to at least all living things, if not seeing all things, living and non-living, as sacred and bearing intrinsic rights. How do you go about balancing that?

That's where ethical schools of thought come into play. Personally, I'm a utilitarian: sacrifice the few to save the many. Of course, I personalize this quite a bit, so that if you ask me if I would have 1000 people killed, or, say, my lover, I'd save my lover, as she's worth more to me than 1000 people. That aside, I'd sacrifice 100 to save 1000, and so on.

There is a difference between strict protection of rights (as in Mill's theory) and personal ethics (utilitarianism being one example).

So you would be a supporter then of the argument for an innate morality that is intrinsic to all humans? Other perspectives include that morality is a culture construct or is learned behavior.