[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, I did not know that there was a definition of moral code that restricted the possible instances. A moral code is for me just a set of moral rules or maybe a moral theory. For example in moral egoism (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=265418) you can kill whoever you want if it is favorable for you.

From the answer given on the page you link to.........

"A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them."

So the moral code of "I can do whatever I like and it is good because I say it is good" does not conform to this code of moral egotism does it?

I believe where the confusion lies is that people believe I am arguing murder is an absolute wrong and any moral code that says it isn't is not a moral code. I have never argued that murder is an absolute wrong. I have used murder as an example and stated that "if" no justification could be found for it "then" it would constitute a moral absolute. I have used this example in an attempt to show that a moral code of "I can do whatever I like and it is good because I say it is good" does not constitute a moral code by any accepted defintion. That includes moral egotism as your linked page clearly shows.

Originally Posted by tompe

I still do not think you distinguish between the concepts and moral philosophy and real world psychology.

Perhaps and perhaps not.

To be honest I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that and so can not comment unless you would like to clarify.

Originally Posted by tompe

Well I have always seen that the unalienable rights in a rights based moral system were absolute rights and therfore moral absolutes in the meaning you now ascribe to moral absolute (previously you said it was that all normal humans agreed).

Perhaps some unalienable rights in a rights based moral system are absolute rights that all normal human beings can agree upon? The two need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

Cheers,
PKFFW