[thefrankbaum]

That "moral code" would be a system of behaviors approved / disapproved based on how it supports a social system that is vital if Man is to maximize his chances of survival on this wild planet; and his rights, as an individual. We struck a balance, a long time ago, that resulted in every viable society shunning murder, because it is detrimental to the coherence of any social grouping, thus endangering the viability of each entity in that grouping if the society were to break down.

Okay. Utilitarian, but legitimate. Now, the money questions - how do you define Man? And how do you delineate "rights"?

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

My definitions of Man will have no bearing or effect, on what Man really means, to Nature that supports him, and vice-versa.

As for rights, sadly, and I mean it, they are a luxury (and thus requiring defence). We do have lawless cultures (and societies) near home, on this very planet, who, by strict definition, have survived as an entity just for as long (in fact, longer) than us, the civilised, have. Now I am not trying to say that the uncivilised are in the right; just that when purely viewed as an entity of nature, their ways have not made them disadvantaged, genetically. Do I approve of their ways, personally? Of course not. Does nature? We don't know, and they don't abort as often as us. What will that lead to? Who wins?

Questions, questions!