From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 16:14:15 GMT
Erin:
> I think
> contextualism and relativism go from kissing cousins to identical
> twins....well maybe more fraternal twins ---each situation seems like it
> could be argued as having at least something unique about it due the
> different individuals, different countries, different times, etc.
My philosophy 101 makes the following distinction between contextualism
and relativism:
"Relativists hold that one can make ethical decision ONLY in the SOCIAL
CONTEXT in which an ethical problem occurs." But the contextualist will
not go along with the relativist. He will readily agree that societies do
in fact possess different customs and codes, and that these perform the
pragmatic function which the relativist claims they do. But that doesn't
make such practices ethically right. The fact that a practice exists
doesn't make it moral. What societies actually do, therefore, is no
guideline for deciding what is ethically right. The contextualist holds
that relevant criteria for making a meaningful ethical decision can be
found ONLY within the CONTEXT OF EACH CONCRETE ETHICAL
PROBLEM. (Emphasis added.)
To put the distinction in my own words, relativism looks to society as the
basis for morality while contextualism looks to whatever a specific
situation calls for regardless of common ethical practices.
But you are correct in that both appeal to unique circumstances,
relativism requiring a much broader "context" than contextualism.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 04 2004 - 16:12:17 GMT