
I hope there is not one- with a subject like this you just have a spiral.  What
would then be a morality of a morality of morals.  Labels don't make arguments. 
One really needs a solid measuring stick by which most actions can be
interpreted, even though this would hardly seem moral.  For example "The best
thing for me is to ensure that I will eat and drink enough.  Hence all actions
must be weighed against this one statement."  whatever helps this goal is
"moral", whatever does not is "immoral"

Of course this leads such a blank space: there are so many different ways to
fulfill a goal, one would need a "hyper-morality" to apply to just the methods.


Seems to me we only consider something moral or immoral if we stop to think
about it long enough  :)  On the other hand, maybe it is our first gut
reaction...  Which?  Who knows: perhaps here we have a way to discriminate
morals.  I don't instinctively thing vegetarianism is right (the same way I
instinctively feel torture is wrong), but if I thought about it long enough and
listened to the arguments, I could perhaps reason that it was wrong (is that
possible!?  :) )  See the difference?

-- 


best regards,

--Adam