> > I suspect you'll hate my answer, but I'll state it anyway: if the
> > social consensus among humans was that the aliens are human-like,
> > and deserve respect, then it would not be okay. If the consensus
> > was that the aliens are a danger, or a source of food necessary to
> > keep people alive, then--in that social world--it would be okay.
>
> It's a position that devours itself. One of the more robust areas of social
> concensus on moral matters is as follows: the truth values of ethical claims
> aren't entirely contingent on social concensus. You'd have a very hard time
> convincing anyone (other than perhaps a few renegade pomos) that enslaving
> the blacks was OK back when most Americans were comfortable with it.
-----------------------
The second sentence itself is entirely contingent upon a historically fragile and given level of social [dis/con]sensus regarding the status of ethical claims. It also suggests a creeping moral/ethical platonism with all the attendant authoritarian porclivities that position carries. No escaping history in pursuit of the god's eye view.........