Actually I disagree, I don't think my thinking is muddled at all.
While your ANOVA analogy may be cute it fails to address my contention that ethics are relative. Of course we can create and define any ethical system of arbitrary complexity and analyze and argue about the 'simple' main effects and the 'complex' ethical interactions all we want. In fact, we can argue indefinitely which social and ethical factors contributed to this and that situation and how these ethical principles apply while these other ones do not. However, you began with the statement "Let's view two different and extreme positions that one can hold with respect to ethics". Perhaps this statement does in some way address the issue, except that I believe it supports my contention that ethics are relative. (Although given the context you later supplied, I think it would have been more accurate to say something like, "Let's view two different and extreme positions that one can hold with respect to the ethics surrounding the issue of the sanctity of life"). With regard to your 'ANOVA' type analysis, I think your statements imply that the situation-dependent ethics are the ones where 'interaction effects' can arise whereas the first position that you mentioned which, according to you, does not depend on situational factors, would be the 'main effect' one. Your statement, then, "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." is "clearly" no such thing. I don't think your response addressed the issue, but rather emphasized a particular example in a particular way. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
