We are probably agreeing on that point. I'd say that ethics is irrelevant when viewed on an individual basis, in vacuo.
Tim had said:
<It could mean anything from thinking all morality is just a matter of opinion and that one opinion is as good as another to believing in some moral absolutes but thinking some things are relative.>
I said that morality by one's self really didn't apply because it involved multiple actors. I couldn't think of a single case where one could be immoral by oneself, in vacuo. I said that the "matter of opinion" was a poor straw man because I couldn't conceive of ethics outside of a group context.
People that are Fundamentalists believe we have an absolute dominion over the animals, but few would say (in this country) that cockfighting is morally okay. But it is legal in Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory and most of the people there don't seem to have a problem with it. Nor do they in Latin American, Asia or Southern European countries.
Ethics regarding what is okay to do with animals is simply relative to the groups that hold the ethic. Why that is so controversial is beyond me. Do I think it is wrong for cockfighting? Yes. Can I claim that it is ABSOLUTELY wrong. No. Would I enforce my opinion on those others? Probably, yes, if the consequences of such an act were acceptable. Am I justified absolutely? No. Is that okay by me? Yes.
As I told Greg, there is so much variety in how ethics are understood on a society by society basis, one would think that if God felt strongly, he'd have gotten us all on the same page early on. But there is no evidence of such an absolute moral authority or that humans ever shared a universal ethic. Such an ethical righteousness requires a social vantage point that is entirely neutral with respect to society (and is one that is physically impossible). With what we know of brain development, it is probably biologically impossible. It is also one to which we just can't have much access, if any. |
