From Greg Williams (920514)
I find much appeal in the recent posts by both Dag Forssell (920513 - 2) and
Rick Marken (920513 15:30) on standards and PCT. It seems to me that Rick's
viewpoint, with PCT ("all perception/all control/all numbers") in the
foreground, addresses the issues in a general manner, while Dag addresses some
particulars. I can see validity to both in their special provinces -- but I
think everyone must beware of being overly provincial.
From an examination of the histories of the diverse ethical systems which have
flourished around the world at various times, ethical CONTEXTUALISM (rather
than relativism or absolutism) might be the best model. The nasty connotations
of ethical relativism (some noted by folks quoted by Dag) are apparent when
the issue is framed as: In THIS society, you're trying to tell me that
anything goes (makes sense, fits in, works)? Obviously ("OBVIOUSLY!") THE WAY
WE UPSTANDING CITIZENS DO IT IS WHAT IS BEST!!! The nasty connotations of
ethical absolutism (pointed to by Rick) are apparent when the issue is framed
as: Why don't those people in that OTHER society do it the way WE do?
Obviously ("OBVIOUSLY!") our way works, and so it should work for them, too.
An ethical contextualism offers a middle road, recognizing that within a
particular context (sometimes quite broadly defined -- i.e., we're all human),
there are certain standards which DO "work," but also recognizing that if the
context is different, those standards might cease to "work." Most tribes, I
have read, refer to themselves as The People, which emphasizes their
distinctness from others who AREN'T The People. That insularity, rooted in
ongoing personal confrontations with a particular context, makes great sense
up to a point. Then the conquerers come along, of course, and try to impose a
new ethics (no more infanticide, etc.) AND A NEW CONTEXT. If the new ethics
precedes the new context (and probably even if it doesn't), there is a great
likelihood of pain.
Personally, I would like to see more recognition that individuals' contexts
are much more variable WITHIN our own society than many people like to admit,
and so there are grounds for ethical pluralism (e.g., in attitudes toward
abortion as influenced by economic status). Yet I understand that there is a
perceived need to restrain such pluralism in hopes of keeping "us" (e.g.,
U.S.) "together" in the face of "challenges" (mainly "foreign competition," it
seems, these days) from "outside."
So I can see the cases for local (sometimes VERY local -- and possibly VERY
ephemeral, too) "absolute" standards AND for the contextuality of ALL of those
standards, seen more globally.
It's all contextual.
Greg