[OWK]

Now, if I may play devil's advocate, the logic of this breaks down in the leap from being free myself to pursue my happiness, to having a moral imperative to allowing others the same freedom. Why not, if I have the power, run roughshod over other's rights, if it advances my own desires (rational or otherwise)? The problem I see with your proposed code is that it is a matter of preference, not of imperative.

The rational imperative is one of principle.

You may not claim free action by right, without recognizing the equal ability in others.

If you wish others to deal with you by consent, free of initiated force and fraud, you must do likwise.

There are no other rational alternatives.

(and man's not-all-too infrequent decent into irrationality is well understood).

[malakhi]

The rational imperative is one of principle. You may not claim free action by right, without recognizing the equal ability in others. If you wish others to deal with you by consent, free of initiated force and fraud, you must do likwise. There are no other rational alternatives. (and man's not-all-too infrequent decent into irrationality is well understood).

I agree with you in theory, and if everyone agreed to abide by this principle, the world would be a much better place. However, how does one define 'reason' and 'rational' in a strictly materialist framework? It seems that you are implicitly assuming at least some sort of metaphysics (in a nontheistic sense) in order to use words like 'rights' and 'reason'. Otherwise, from a strictly reductionistic standpoint, all you have are the firing of electrical signals and chemical reactions.