In philosophy there is a concept called ‘metaethics’; in short, it is the concept that there is such a thing as morality, but it does not define good nor does it define bad.  It is simply an acknowledgement that there are such things.

Some people try to differentiate good from bad by their actions, and in doing so incur the wrath of others.  Conversations sometimes go like this:

“I’m a vegetarian.”

“Oh…so you have something against eating meat.”

“Yes.  I don’t believe that it is justifiable to eat meat given the local and global consequences of doing so.”

“So you think you are better than me.”

It might be the case that the vegetarian does think she is better than those that eat meat, but it might just be that she is trying to act morally.  At some point it has become an offense to try to act morally.  But there is a caveat and it is fallacious.

The offense is that one is trying to act in such a way that does not coincide with one’s own ‘morality’.  Doing good, even if it is being done incorrectly, is at the very least doing good.

Perhaps those that are offended need to take a closer look at their own metaethical stance; how they are going about trying to do good?