"It's as i said. Social construct is an invention. Despite the text you've inserted, your source indicates that social construct remains largely an invention. The illusion of social constructs appearing natural, is the simple fact people understand them."
Yes, largely an invention. Morality develops from an instinct. This instinct causes men to create moral constructs. When you look at the constructs themselves, they cannot be explained entirely by social conditioning...Biology shows us that both altruism and selfishness are normal—and often carefully genetically balanced—tendencies in social animals. Men create and live by morals. Again, no one had suggested that the moral impulse was invented by man, as you presumed others were, when you said "even dogs have morality."
The reason why the word I've emphasized the word "largely" is because, especially in the case of morality, other factors are at play. Primarily, the moral instinct. The instinct flourishes into a manifold of forms, all of which are inescapable from social constructs. No one has claimed that man "invented morality."
"It's instinct > social construct. Why undermine the source that driven the product to manifestation ?"
How have I undermined it?
"What social constructs produce is only ideological which can serve any master, that is good or bad, or even fictional, or set rules for some game etc. . Morality on the other hand, in itself is not a rule we can simply edit, due to "the principle of causality."
Morality suffers from all the criticism you have about social constructs. Which makes perfect sense, as morality is, after all, a social construct.
"European Christians once started killing cats, because they believed they were evil. Because they believed what they were doing was moral never made it so, due to the fact there was no actual good coming of it. They ended up with a rat infestation before they stopped killing cats, but that's another story."
That would be an example of morality causing problems for its own practitioners.
Define the difference between, as you say, "The moral instinct, and morality"
The moral instinct is an innate drive. It impels social animals to live harmoniously with those who they affiliate with. Its range can extend beyond the spectrum of average in/out group mechanics as demonstrated by forms of altruism and selfishness. Morality is the set of beliefs and emotions corresponding to how the moral drive processes environment. It manifests itself in countless shapes across the world.
"So i have to prove that no one is perfect, and how everyone makes mistakes and it's how we actually are ?"
We are all perfectly as we must be. You could be nothing more in this very moment than what you are. I thought I was the pessimist...
"I also have to prove how immorality obstructs progress and derails environments ?"
I am sure there are many philosophies that stand diametric to your own, with volumes of arguments better than "no one is perfect." But you haven't really fleshed out exactly what "immorality" is to you. Knowing you, I'd wager that utilitarianism, consumerism, pragmatism, hedonism, forms of existentialism, and Machiavelliansim all stand in contrast to your beliefs.
"Regardless if what they believed, they were ACTUALLY practicing the destruction of their own species. That is degenerate behavior."
It doesn't matter if I agree or not. It's still an opinion that it's "degenerate behavior." The point is that morals are relative. Your mind cannot seem to wrap around the fact that all morals are relative to one-another, and none have primacy. We simply live by the ideals we find most suitable.