John,
Thanks for taking the time to reply
>
>Why would anyone want to mediate the conflict?
The participants to it perhaps? I would have thought that is exactly what
ethical decisions are about. We don't want a third party mediating the
limit/transgression dialectic. We (those involved) _have_ to mediate it.
Even inaction is a form of action. But how do I act? And is my desire to
create a new set of ethical norms a violation of others?
The whole point is not to
>mediate anything but to contrast one's own mode of being with that of
>others.
But again, that is exactly what ethical conflicts are. And we are in th
eworld with others and our views do contrast and conflict. My mode of being
might foreclose on others mode(s) of being.
>We are not to proceed on an ethical basis, or a normative basis, precisely
>because the people burning the bras are attempting to create a new
>normative space, one not captured or even addressed by the current ethical
>norms.
I can't believe you are advocating value freedom here. Equally, those
engaged in certain other practices (I won't bother to spell out the many
example here) might well also claim to be "attempting to create a new
normative space, one not captured or even addressed by the current ethical
norms." Are you advocating "anything goes" here?
When you're trying to create new modes of being, it makes no sense
>to appeal to ethical norms that refer back to previously established modes
>of being. You won't find the resources there you need for opposition.
This seems, to me, to neglect totally the manner in which the present is
inextricably bound up with past practices. It posits a 'new' beginning that
seemingly (I know many think Foucault advocated such radical ruptures, but I
think this reading is simply too simplistic) emerges ex nihilo.
>
>Are there conditions under which you would condone the killing of babies?
I don't know, I would have to judge each position in context. Still the
example you give only really gets its force by the very fact that some
causes might be deemed to be worthy of taking the life of a child, had it
been the pulling up of a nice rose bush the story might not have been told
and would certainly not have had the same impact. So the children here still
function as an ethical limit.
As a general principle, no, I would not advocate the killing of children,
certainly not if it is predicated on the assumption that boy children are of
more value than girls. But I still fail to see how this issue moves you away
>from having to choose, and in choosing you will value some things more than
others, and simply knowing the limit and how to transgress it does not
really tell you how to choose. Equally, of course, who is claiming to know
the limit and the relevant transgression(s) of that limit? And this
demarcation of limit and transgression is itself an
ethico-normative-politico drawing of boundaries. So you are already in the
ethical game as proscribed by your practices.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking the time to reply
>
>Why would anyone want to mediate the conflict?
The participants to it perhaps? I would have thought that is exactly what
ethical decisions are about. We don't want a third party mediating the
limit/transgression dialectic. We (those involved) _have_ to mediate it.
Even inaction is a form of action. But how do I act? And is my desire to
create a new set of ethical norms a violation of others?
The whole point is not to
>mediate anything but to contrast one's own mode of being with that of
>others.
But again, that is exactly what ethical conflicts are. And we are in th
eworld with others and our views do contrast and conflict. My mode of being
might foreclose on others mode(s) of being.
>We are not to proceed on an ethical basis, or a normative basis, precisely
>because the people burning the bras are attempting to create a new
>normative space, one not captured or even addressed by the current ethical
>norms.
I can't believe you are advocating value freedom here. Equally, those
engaged in certain other practices (I won't bother to spell out the many
example here) might well also claim to be "attempting to create a new
normative space, one not captured or even addressed by the current ethical
norms." Are you advocating "anything goes" here?
When you're trying to create new modes of being, it makes no sense
>to appeal to ethical norms that refer back to previously established modes
>of being. You won't find the resources there you need for opposition.
This seems, to me, to neglect totally the manner in which the present is
inextricably bound up with past practices. It posits a 'new' beginning that
seemingly (I know many think Foucault advocated such radical ruptures, but I
think this reading is simply too simplistic) emerges ex nihilo.
>
>Are there conditions under which you would condone the killing of babies?
I don't know, I would have to judge each position in context. Still the
example you give only really gets its force by the very fact that some
causes might be deemed to be worthy of taking the life of a child, had it
been the pulling up of a nice rose bush the story might not have been told
and would certainly not have had the same impact. So the children here still
function as an ethical limit.
As a general principle, no, I would not advocate the killing of children,
certainly not if it is predicated on the assumption that boy children are of
more value than girls. But I still fail to see how this issue moves you away
>from having to choose, and in choosing you will value some things more than
others, and simply knowing the limit and how to transgress it does not
really tell you how to choose. Equally, of course, who is claiming to know
the limit and the relevant transgression(s) of that limit? And this
demarcation of limit and transgression is itself an
ethico-normative-politico drawing of boundaries. So you are already in the
ethical game as proscribed by your practices.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------