Most and least moral posters

[Citizen James]

Rather hard to say, as I know little to nothing of the personal lives of the other posters here.  (other than perhaps the longstanding joke that many post so often they have no lives).

The rule of resprocisity (aka the golden rule) is probably the closest there is to a universal morality. 

Ideological consistancy (that is, not being a hypocrite - which is a lot harder than people realize if they take an hard and fast look at things) is often considered a valuable quality.

Then there's the question of knowledge.  (I suppose you could call it innocence).  Does a lack of understanding consequences assuage someone from guilt, or is it independent?  An toddler with a gun is a dangerous thing, especially since they don't understand the consequences.   Would that also apply to the menally ill, or confused, or simply ignorant.   If a person was raised on hatered and intollerance, and is not familiar with the historical and cultural background of the scriptures they find holy are they moral for believing what they were taught, immoral for preaching intollerance, or simply confused and confuddled?

I do my best to live a moral life, the best I know how.   To try and put the sort of soul searching that underlies trying to do so, well, I don't think I can.  It's a deeply personal thing for each one of us.   

I think the best any of us can do is try to do our best to live well with what we know.

That's my opinion on the matter anyway.