An interesting take on it. Doubt you listen to Rush much--I'm sure others have told you all about him. Another way of putting it is that a conservative believes that there are objective moral standards, and a liberal decides for himself what is right and wrong depending on....depending on what? If he believes that there are no objective standards either from a supreme supernatural authority (religious) or derivable from human nature and facts of reality (Objectivist/libertarian), then how does he decide what's right and wrong? Almost anything can be eventually justified if the ultimate authority is inside your own head, separate from external observation of objective reality.

I subscribe to the Objectivist/libertarian theories of morality, but that's just me. Most religious >"people tend to have very reliable moral codes, largely absorbed from centuries of history and experience, but now and then someone will decide he has a "direct line" to God and go off in rather unpleasant directions (Inquisition, and any number of cultists). Again, when the ultimate authority on reality is the voice between your ears, anything goes."

Frankly, I don't think a lot people do have very reliable moral codes. At least they have not been in evidence throughout history over the centuries--Atilla, Hitler, Reagan, Gingrich, Pol Pot, Stalin, concentration camps, attempts at population control by enforced moral regulation, etc.

A "direct line" to God sounds very much like having a "letter from God" to me.

When your "ultimate authority on reality" is some bearded dude in the sky that threatens to punish you if you don't follow the "moral codes" dictated by a certain group; well then pardner, I submit you wear your moral code the same way as you wear your cuff links. When it is convenient, you can put 'em on, or take 'em off.

Real morality is precisely that voice between your ears. Socrates called it Daimon, and said it was that spirit that sat on his ear lobe that warned him any time he avoided the truth and sought something other than the good. This is what a moral code is: personal, based upon your education, upbringing, experience and intelligence. Not something forced upon you by some church and enforced upon you by a deity.

>"On the other end of the spectrum, the moral record this century of atheist socialism speaks for itself (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and others. Eighty million victims so far.) There is a not-inconsiderable record of these types "dictating the good to their fellow citizens" too. Not that this has anything at all to do with liberals, right?"

Right you are. None of people you mention were liberals by any stretch. In fact, they were all authoritarian and tried to establish their version of a status quo. Actually this is a pretty fair definition of conservatisim.

>"Absent a specific source, I think most people derive their moral codes by unconciously absorbing them from their environment, their parents, their religious upbringing (if any), the society around them, and peer groups. Fortunately for us all, this usually results in a fairly decent person. Still, without that objective baseline, such people are also easily steered in other directions by those who feel--rightly or wrongly--that they have more certainty about these things."

Point here is that a moral code "unconciously absorbed" is a code for zombies and requires no intellectual integration. Again back to Socrates telling us that we should seek the truth, and seek to do good, because it is the right thing to do. Not because of the threat of punishment for non-compliance.