That's a complex and wonderful question.
Not easy to answer in this sort of format, particularly in the face of a busy period gearing up for two trials coming up shortly.
But very briefly, I believe there are two kinds of ethics, absolute and conditional.
But even with absolute ethics, the manner of applying them can depend on the circumstances. The ethic cannot, but how it is applied can.
For example: I do not believe that individuals have the right to kill other individuals except in self defense. To me, that is an absolute ethic.
But of course one then has to decide what an individual is, and one has to decide what self-defense is and whether it applies in a given situation. Is, for example, a fetus an individual? To me, yes, which is why I take the classical liberal (as opposed to neoliberal) viewpoint that abortion except to save the life of the mother (self defense) is ethically wrong. Or, for example, when does a group of individuals turn from a mob which has no right to kill except in self-defense into a government which may have the right to kill other than in self-defense? So the ethic remains inviolate, but the application of it to a situation depends on the circumstances.
But that's not a change in the ethic, it's just recognizing that the application of the ethic has to depend on what is going on. |
