Eric Hepburn, ITC wrote:
>
> >Charlotte Sullivan wrote:
> >>Much like morality. The law does not require you to be moral; you
> >>>become (or don't become) moral by your own choice. Just like
> >>>exploiting people or animals... it is (unfortunately) a choice which
> >>-other- >lives must depend on.
> >
> I'm a little uncomfortable with your use of the word "moral" here. To
> say that people become (or not) moral, is to imply that there is a state
> of being that IS MORAL. This strikes me as somewhat absolutist.
>
> I think about it in these terms: For the most part all people are moral,
> in the sense that they have a system of values, morals if you will, that
> they live according to. The trouble in interrelation is that one
> person's morals are different from anothers, creating a gap that is
> difficult to bridge.
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by moral in this context?
Yes, I do think there is a "state of being that is moral." But, that state
differs from person to person.
For me, I think killing animals for their fur is immoral (no surprise there).
However, if I choose to purchase such a garment, regardless of how I feel about
their killing, -that- I find to be immoral. This may not be true for you... you
may not have any concerns about fur. Therefore, if -you- were to buy a fur coat,
an immoral choice based on what -you- believe is moral. It comes down to choice,
and what we personally define as moral.
Based on Christianity, it is immoral (or wrong) to have more than one wife or
husband... other religions would not agree.
But that does not stop me from thinking
of you as immoral, even though you do not see such a choice that way.
Of course, morality
>
> Thanks
> >Eric
> >
> >
--
- Charlotte Sullivan
Executive Director
Protect Animal Life
"PEACE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL WHO LIVE"
