i wouldn't say ethics are arbitrary, but certainly ethics are not a steadfast concept. if they were, there would be no moral philosophy.
with regards to one unified concept of rights, there are two schools of thought - universalism and cultural relativism.
it's with relation more to human rights, but you can apply it to anything if you adapt the precepts of the debate, so i would say if you want an insight into the debate, i would try reading The Rights of Minority Cultures, ed. Will Kymlicka.
ethics are not 'arbitrary', but certainly do depend on ones own moral theory. many people do not think eating animals is wrong, not only because of social mores, but also because they do not think animals think and feel in the same way as us. therefore, they do not 'suffer' the way that we do, and do not have the same concept of death.
obviously we disagree, but it is very hard to argue with someone who takes a viewpoint such as that, for if you are arguing from not only different sides of a debate, but within different spheres of the moral spectrum, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. the very conflict between universalism and cultural relativism is whether there is one core of (human) values, or whether we, as liberals, need to accept that other moral codes also exist. it's harder to extrapolate this to animal rights, as teh subject is underdeveloped, and much of the rights debates stems for the idea of human dignity, thus requires modification to apply to animals - that doesn't mean it can't be done though
amanda
Bookmarks