I am telling you that civilization demands a code of law, because to rely on belief in one's own rectitude is to give that same rationale to everyone else. We all believe we are right.

I "believe" that the Sun is larger than the Moon. The fact that someone else may "believe" otherwise is meaningless. There are objective standards to these things.

Think about this for a minute. Where do laws come from in the first place? Standards of evidence? Civilized methods of dealing with problems? The concept of mediation versus military power?

Aren't these concepts based on a specific moral set of principles? A specific world-view?

You object to "arbitrarily" raising a specific moral code above others. Yet the very idea of "seeing all sides" and "fair play" that is the baseline of your objection is in fact DEPENDENT on a specific moral foundation. You can't in fact make your argument at all without presupposing the superiority of a particular moral viewpoint.

If one assigns equal weight to the moral concept that might makes right, and that the proper thing to do is shoot women, blow up children, and cut the throats of enemies while they're tied and helpless while laughing at the "stupidity" of compassionate opponents, then how can you call for "civilized behavior?" Based on what standard?

The very IDEA that a citizen can call upon objective law to defend himself from the power of the state is a uniquely Western moral concept, and it's pretty damn recent even in the West.

Try and imagine a group of Jews coming to the Taliban and insisting on their civil and legal rights.

Yes. We ARE "better" than they are, if by "they" you are referring to the monsters we are fighting. The difference between a free people that respects individual rights and a tyranny that rules without any rights at all and kills at a whim is more than a difference of opinions.