Though mostly a lurker here, I couldn't resist airing some thoughts on this one:
PT >> If there are universal ethics we can prove these on the Internet.
RG> whose ethics will be universalised do you suppose? and what kinds of
intolerances might that validate/legitimize?
Exactly the right questions - thank you, Radhika! And I would gently reply: I think we can propose an ethics that begins in >part with the universal value implicit in the suggestion here that "universal" claims have all too often in the past served as excuses for colonialism, imperialism. . . .
I would like to suggest that it is not only the concept of "universal" that we need to problematize in thinking about these issues, but the concept of "ethics" as well.
and the philosophical base (s) which themselves are situated. I agree. I am not arguing for relativism - the binary of "relativism vs universalism" misses the point. I am asking for a careful examination of contextual praxis. Thus it matters who is dictating the "ethics". but having said that - contexts are not contained in watertight (etc) compartments - not that anyone in this discussion has really suggested that... r -- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor School of Communication Studies Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik