This is a terrifically interesting post and well argued, however I take issue with the emphasis on taking "moral responsibility."

To the Nazi who's moral compass involved a need to support an eradication of other races, I am sure they slept soundly after the massacre of Jews. When one says "follow morality," the immediate question is who's morality?

When you define the need to eradicate evil and define evils, you are simply introducing your own morality which is essentially the same as introducing a code. The rules that bound people's morality may be just as arbitrary as those that bind codes, and are used to justify "lawful" as well as "moral" killings everyday.

My apologies if I am misinterpreting the post and it was intended to be read as advocating not following people blindly. However, if the post was intended to support some concept of naturally endowed morality, my question is still how following someone's development of a philosophy on what is right and wrong is any less arbitrary than following a code someone developed describing what can and cannot be tolerated.