In another post, Tom made a comment which I have taken completely out of context and quoted below because it is a perfect way to introduce my question.

"Ayn Rand hated libertarianism which she said confused political freedom and moral anarchy. She pointed out that political freedom is useless unless one has a consistent and proper set of moral principles underlying it, and believed, correctly or not, that most libertarians thought anything at all was proper as long as it didn't hurt anyone else."

I'm not being facetious here, but I understand Ayn Rand was an atheist, and in the absence of a divine code or religious statute, there is no other way to define immorality except as "hurting someone else". I've always felt I've had the right to do anything I pleased as long as no one else got hurt. Apparently, she did not agree with me. I'm used to this disagreement with religious people, but it surprises me from an agnostic.

Of course, hurting others implies much more than just physical injury or destruction of someone else's property or dignity. And hurting someone else can also be the result of a complex set of events and connections. It can be quite subtle and convoluted, but eventually it traces back to someone causing some sort of pain to another. Any action I take which affects someone in a way they would rather not be, could be considered immoral. Sooner or later a subjective judgement must be applied and a genuine conflict of interest may have to be negotiated.

For example, I may feel I have a moral right to shoot a wild animal that threatens me. But I have no right to shoot your dog if it is no danger to me. But what if your dog threatens me? And what about shooting an animal that does not belong to anyone else and is no danger to me? If the animal is an endangered species, it can be argued that it belongs to everyone and I have no right to shoot it (except in self defense, of course) because it does hurt everyone, in some complex and subtle way to hurt it. It belongs to the world. How about the killing of a non-endangered species for no reason whatsoever, just for fun. Sportsmen do it all the time. Another example would be to destroy an archaeological site, it belongs to all of us, and to vandalize it hurts everyone. But it also is clear from these examples that there will be honest disagreements among good people as to what will be moral or not.

Is it moral for me to burn a flag which you honor, but which I happen to own? I am not attacking your property, or threatening you, but I am attacking your belief and dignity very directly. In a way, it does hurt you. Is it immoral to insult someone, as long as you do not cause direct physical injury? How about insulting someone's family or religion? And if it is immoral, how justifiable are actions taken by the victim to control my actions, or retaliate. What if I find your religion offensive or immoral? Might I not feel I have a moral right to attack it publicly, as long as I don't physically threaten you? Is this any different than the flag burning? I think we can all agree that there is a lot of room for honest disagreement here, but if morality is open to negotiation and codification, what "moral" authority does morality carry? Morality is traditionally based on absolutes, not the vote or litigation.

I would personally like to think I am a moral person, but except under certain obvious circumstances, I'm not even sure what that means. I'm not sure anyone knows what it means.