Breaking My Blog Virginity

From the comments about Hitler having good (moral) qualities for being a vegatarian:
If everyone has good (moral) and evil (immoral) qualities, can anyone rightly be called moral or immoral? There must be some line where one's morality outweighs that one's immorality or vice-versa for one to be labeled moral. And those (im)moral qualities must vary in degrees of (im)morality, because how would anyone outweigh one over the other? Or, does one have to have entirely (im)moral qualities to be labeled (im)moral?

Near the end of Sylvan's article, he (perhaps indirectly) brings up the problem of widespread ignorance of what is environmentally ethical (or could be), in the possible scenario of killing blue whales as an economically permissable act by the collective demand, because many are either misinformed or do not know if these whales even exist, what is happening to the whales, or the significance of their possible extinction. In such a scenario, could there be an environmental ethic that applies (legally, as in to outlaw the killing of blue whales?), whether people are ignorant to the situation or not? As Sylvan says, "Whether the blue whale survives should not have to depend on what humans know or what they see in television." With the environmental dilemmas we face today, however, people would need to subscribe to an environmental ethic on a massive scale. To stop the amount of CO2 we emit, for example, nearly the entire population would need to agree on an environmental ethic which would make emissions ethically wrong, as the effects of emission will devastate life which we are obligated to take care of, including our own, as we depend on environmental factors that are in danger of being destroyed.

The first step for the masses to adopt an environmental ethic of this kind is widespread education and awareness. As this is a pressing issue in which our survival, and the survival of other species we depend on, is at stake, ignorance on the issue cannot be tolerated. I think, therefore, what is taught in basic, pre-secondary education should be reevaluated on a global scale, to educate the masses with knowledge that is necessary for our survival, such as environmental issues, and other topics which closely effect the environment in which we live, such as sex education, which is being done in many countries with fast-growing populations; but are these people also educated on the environmental repercussions of over-population, and if so, in a way in which the educated actually care? Perhaps people should be educated in a way in which sexual activity as merely a pleasurable fulfillment is wrong, not just for the children that may come of the act, but for themselves, as they could be using the time given to them in a diffrent manner. I know this is another ethical issue in iteself and is breaching the lines of a religious-spiritual tone. But anyway...