You do realise all those codes are different from each other in many respects, right? As I have said already, it is largely immaterial whether societies have had legal codes (though certainly not all have ever had distinct, immutable codes of that kind). It makes particular sense if legal codes serve the needs of the privileged and elite - they are privileging their own status and survival, and making others play along. So it is true there is an idea of morality may be universal, but the actual moral codes are not.
For instance, would you agree with the Hammurabi that theft, criminal negligence, assisting escaped slaves, disorderly conduct, multiple marriages, or being a 'bad wife' (the latter punishable by drowning) are justified killings. Why or why not?
Also, to say unjustified murder is a taboo is a truism - murder is by definition unjustified, hence why killing in self defence is not generally considered murder in our contemporary legal code. What matters is what is considered justified death. That differs significantly, and calls into question any real appeal to an authentic, universal, intrinsic moral-immoral narrative. It's determined entirely by context, and that being true, the only rational way to ultimately validate one's opinion is by force.
Yep, because they all are the children of the same queen ant, and the workers themselves can't reproduce. So only one genetic set per hive, basically. Ants from other hives will fight each other to bloody, bloody death.
Again, this is all opinion. You still haven't established an actual rational foundation for "might not equalling right", for "meaningless struggles", or "improving your own civilisation". It's all in the eye of the beholder, right, because there is no purpose to life, it's all about surviving as long as you can as you see fit, producing offspring, and constructing your own meaning as you go. Nietzsche was right on the money on that front - if God is dead, we must create a new meaning.
For instance, would you agree with the Hammurabi that theft, criminal negligence, assisting escaped slaves, disorderly conduct, multiple marriages, or being a 'bad wife' (the latter punishable by drowning) are justified killings. Why or why not?
Also, to say unjustified murder is a taboo is a truism - murder is by definition unjustified, hence why killing in self defence is not generally considered murder in our contemporary legal code. What matters is what is considered justified death. That differs significantly, and calls into question any real appeal to an authentic, universal, intrinsic moral-immoral narrative. It's determined entirely by context, and that being true, the only rational way to ultimately validate one's opinion is by force.
Yep, because they all are the children of the same queen ant, and the workers themselves can't reproduce. So only one genetic set per hive, basically. Ants from other hives will fight each other to bloody, bloody death.
Again, this is all opinion. You still haven't established an actual rational foundation for "might not equalling right", for "meaningless struggles", or "improving your own civilisation". It's all in the eye of the beholder, right, because there is no purpose to life, it's all about surviving as long as you can as you see fit, producing offspring, and constructing your own meaning as you go. Nietzsche was right on the money on that front - if God is dead, we must create a new meaning.
