Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSflim
Your post leads me to believe that your morality could be described as
"agree with the status-quo".
So were Martin Luther King and other equality activists behaving in an immoral way? they were, after all, going against the status-quo. Are all people who dissent from what is socially acceptable at that time, acting immorally?
The reason I started this thread the way I did (by comparing specism to racism) was so I could avoid having to construct a 'moral theory of everything' from the ground up.
|
MY morality is not necessarily "agree with the status quo", however the averaged, socially acceptable moral standards probably could be described in such a fashion.
About the Martin Luther King deal (and others who challenge social standards)... A lot of people in that time would say yes, they are acting immorally. Of course now we live by todays morals so we would say "how could they have thought that to be an acceptable moral standard!?!?" and act all appalled and the like, but hey... that's how a lot of people thought back then, and they defined their own morals just like we define ours.
Without constructing and defining a standard moral theory (or at least one that is all-inclusive to the issue at hand) and giving a convicing argument for it, then you have no way of saying what IS moral and what ISN'T. You can say "these are what my morals are" but we don't have to listen to you. You telling us "eating meat and animal research is immoral" is the equivalent someone saying to another "Judaism is right". Without an acceptable social standard our argument simplifies to a wordy yelling contest of "yes"s and "no"s.