While everyone might seem to have a unique morality, there are in fact only three coherent moral codes.
Might Makes Right
This is the notion that the ability to do something makes it acceptable. The fact that I can get away with rape, murder or theft means that it is acceptable. It equates power with rights.
This position effectively argues that morality doesn't exist. This might also be called 'law of the jungle', 'dog eats dog' or 'eat or be eaten'. It suggests that we are no better than animals. It is both an abdication of morality, and an abdication of humanity.
Those who subscribe to this 'morality' are no better than animals, and they can be treated accordingly.
The Good of the Many
This is the notion that a moral action has to be in the interests of the many (or of 'society'). 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', as The Chairman said.
This is the notion that it acceptable to take someone's possessions to give to someone 'more needy'. That is, that effectively private ownership does not exist - not even ownership of one's own body. One's obligation is to use one's body not for your own benefit, but to the benefit of others.
Those who subscribe to this morality are generous thieves at best.
Non Initiation of Force
This is the notion that people own their own bodies, and therefore the products of their own labor their own ingenuity and anything which has been traded or gifted to them by other consenting people.
If you build a kiln, make bricks, and stack the bricks on each other to build a house, then the house is yours. You have no obligation to share the house with others or to give it to those who are more needy.
Few of us build our own houses in this day and age. We trade with others with the experience and skills who can build a house better, faster and cheaper than we could, but the principle is the same. Anything you have obtained through effort, ingenuity, consensual trade or love is yours.
Loosely, this is the libertarian morality.
Others
All other forms of morality are incoherent. That is, they contain internal contradictions. Tony Blair's 'third way', the 'mixed economy' or the 'regulated free market' are just incoherent, but carefully constructed, slogans designed to justify theft of other's property, while preventing theft of their own.
There are many individuals who advocate compulsory 'sharing' of wealth. Individuals who claim that the legitimate role of government is to take the wealth of the rich, and share it 'fairly'. Rarely, if ever, is this a call for the government to take their own possessions to give to others - it is a call for the government to take someone else's possessions and to give them a share. All under the guise of 'the good of the many'.
Does the politician bleating about the hardships of minority groups in her own electorate really think they are more needy or more deserving than people starving in third world countries? If your moral code dictates that goods should be given to the most needy, then the taxes (supposedly taken from the rich) should be given to the poorest - not to the poorest voters in your own electorate.
But carefully crafted slogans about compassion and equality, mixed with equally crafted slogans about individual freedom and personal rights allow the politician and the looter to tread the morally incoherent path to theft while desperately claiming the moral high-ground.
The road to hell is not paved with good intentions. It is paved with the incoherent half-truths and outright lies of looters and their policitians.
See