One might try to solve a moral problem by defining issues: finding some plausible set of concepts and using those to guide information gathering. One says, "Long and short term consequences matter here" or "This is a case in which the rights of two people come into conflict" or "The only question to answer here is: 'Does this behavior amount to cruelty?'" One might also say: "This is a list of the people who need to meet on this issue. They need to meet for at least an afternoon, and the relevant issues are whatever issues they identify."
Similarly, one might try to teach ethics by discussing the issues raised by particular cases, or one might encourage students to go talk to those in the middle of ethically charged situations and see what comes up -- in conversation and in reflection afterward.
Two facts are worth thinking about, in deciding how to proceed: (1) it is a familiar fact of experience that one sometimes cannot maintain certain views and perspectives in the presence of certain people, and that other views and perspectives rise to the top when certain people are in the room. (The provision in our legal system that people charged with crimes may confront their accusers takes notice of this fact.) (2) Many meetings on virtually any topic will elicit some consideration that none of the participants thought of before coming to the meeting.
The place of such procedural questions: who meets, for how long, under what rules -- in the discipline of practical ethics strikes me as one of its central issues.
Posted by shea0017 at December 30, 2004 9:44 AM