with the feeling that discussion is over, cooperation is impossible, and that progress is doomed since we have no ally in the ethically dissenting. To end an ethical conversation with a declaration of incontestible incompatibility fosters an "Us versus Them" mentality in which the only way to acheive any sort of goal is at the expense of those who oppose us; and we naturally oppose any actions taken by the opposite side which we consider immoral. Life becomes an ethical zero-sum game in which there can only be one winner: the ethically correct.The second question is now visible in this dicussion: under what circumstances, if any, may an individual claim that a given ethical system embraced by another person is wrong? Does this not commit the sin of intolerance and absolutism? But then where is the line between ethical imperialism and refusing to tacitly condone a moral atrocity with silence? Clearly, the difference between consequentialism and nonconsequentialism is bound up in these questions: if the results of my actions on the world are the ultimate test of my moral rightness, it is only ethical to promote my system of belief so that others may contribute to making the world better as well. And implicit in the promotion of my ethics is the denunciation of your current belief system; one does not replace with inferior goods. But this does not wholly answer the questions posed, for disagreement and condemnation are not the same. One can recognize that another's ethics differ from one's own, actively advocate one's personal ethics, and yet still respect positively individuals' right to adopt an alternative moral code.The problem with unilateral condemnation of an ethical system is that it invites legitimate similar criticism from others on one's own. Moral judgments are not made in a vacuum; one must be IN a moral framework in order to judge another's moral framework, which invalidates impartial evaluation. There cannot be criteria ou...
