On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:11:08 -0700, Michael Smith wrote: >Relative ethics deplorable, perhaps. But nevertheless the case?
With all due respect, I think that you thinking is a little muddled. Let's view two different and extreme positions that one can hold with respect to ethics: (1) There are ethical principles, such as viewing human life as being ultimate in importance and its maintenance as a sacred obligation (for example, see Consistent Life Ethic aka "Seamless Garment" position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic ). A person believing in this position would be anti-abortion, anti-death penality, anti-euthanasia, supportive of programs that support one's one's achievement of full membership in human society, etc. This position does not depend upon situational factors. (2) Because situations represent the operation of a large number of individual factors, one can think of ethical principles interacting with other ethical principles and that situationism represent a high-order interaction (in the ANOVA sense) of ethical principles. For example, whether life is considered "sanctified" or not depends not only the "life" but whether that life is worth living. If one is being maintained on life support, perhaps one might consider ending such a life because the quality of one's life is very low (that is if one is even conscious of it), the need for a high level of resources to maintain life, the cost of those services, etc. In (1) a principle is like a "main effect" in ANOVA while in (2) it is an interaction in ANOVA: the priority of one ethical principle is dependent upon the levels of other ethical principle relevant to the situation. Sometimes, the structure of a situation is relatively simple and a "main effect" approach to the application of an ethical principle is warranted (e.g., plaigiarism is bad, m'kay?). Sometimes, the structure of a situation is complicated and one has to consider several different ethical principles and their importance to the person making a decision about how to act or judge the situation. I imagine that most real-life situations vary from "main effect" to "interaction" type situations and the real problem is having a clear enough perception of it to recognize what the situation is. Treating a situation as though a "main effect" ethical principle is appropriate when in fact an "interaction" of ethical principles is warrented is clearly an error. As would be the opposite, that is, treating all situations as though they are interactions of ethical principles when in fact they warrent a main effect approach (e.g., plaigiarism). I think that your approach would lead to this kind of error. Then again, we can only hope that we have the wisdom to see clearly and know what to do. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
