>
> In any case, I don't know how this got turned into a debate about how
> social movements arise.That's wasn't the original question. The original
> question was: Miles/Carrol/Robert believe strongly that, say,
> exploitation should be abolished. Yet they insist that this conclusion
> has nothing to do with morality. So why abolish exploitation then? Miles
> at least acknowledged the question by refusing to answer it. What's the
> answer? And if there is no answer, how is that not the very definition
> of unreason?
Let me be more direct: your question is pointless. Answering it directly would be "the very definition of unreason".
Miles