>it's 'why should he start?'

He has started.

>i maintain that a reasonable
>person would not initiate aggression as a result of his
>rational moral code.

Then you're not involved in the current debate going on between you and I. For the question at hand is "IS there a rational moral code?".... that is... is there a way to arrive at the necessity of morality by "pure reason". The answer is no, and the atheist originally quoted has conceded this.

But I suppose you'll now attempt to show that morality can be reached by reason alone... let's see what you say...


>the code that derives from "i do not
>want to receive harm, therefore others do not want to receive
>harm." but as i said, there are exceptions to this code.

There is NO reason to believe that just because others receive harm, that I will receive harm. ONCE AGAIN, if I'm stronger, faster, quicker, craftier and have an army full of uber-men universal soldiers that can kill you in any of a thousand ways, there IS NO WAY YOU CAN APPEAL TO REASON TO GET ME TO STOP OPPRESSING/HURTING/BEATING/RAPING/KILLING YOU.

Reason, again, will not get you there.