Comments on: Alternate Ethics, or: Telling Lies to Researchers http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/alternate-ethics-or-telling-lies-to-researchers from Laura Agustín Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:27:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Laura Agustin http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/alternate-ethics-or-telling-lies-to-researchers#comment-735 Laura Agustin Fri, 15 May 2009 10:30:43 +0000 http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/?p=83#comment-735 I don't see relativism as bad or problematic or to be avoided. I wrote this particular piece some years ago and since have developed my belief that efforts to arrive at universal ethics directly cause much of the worst conflict about sex laws in general. Complexity is reduced and laws don't work. I was just at a conference talking about this (see cherries). I don't know how much of my work you know but I don't give much satisfaction to those who want moral questions solved! I don’t see relativism as bad or problematic or to be avoided. I wrote this particular piece some years ago and since have developed my belief that efforts to arrive at universal ethics directly cause much of the worst conflict about sex laws in general. Complexity is reduced and laws don’t work. I was just at a conference talking about this (see cherries). I don’t know how much of my work you know but I don’t give much satisfaction to those who want moral questions solved!

]]> By: crossroadsvirgil http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/alternate-ethics-or-telling-lies-to-researchers#comment-734 crossroadsvirgil Fri, 15 May 2009 10:07:49 +0000 http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/?p=83#comment-734 Thanks. If what you say about the understanding of research participants in poorer countries and their ability to opt-out of research is true then it seems that there is a good deal of research going on which is ethically dubious. As you say in the post-- given that circumstance it would be neither surprising nor particularly blameworthy if participants were to lie to researchers. As you say: 'My interest is in facilitating dialogue, not requiring that everyone involved agree but instead accept each other’s differences in order to find common ground.' My point was just that I don't see that you need to commit yourself to a problematic relativism to pursue that interest. For that matter, I don't really see why you need to accept relativism in order to avoid attempts at arriving at moral bottom lines. I can see that such attempts would be most unhelpful and not very interesting! Thanks. If what you say about the understanding of research participants in poorer countries and their ability to opt-out of research is true then it seems that there is a good deal of research going on which is ethically dubious. As you say in the post– given that circumstance it would be neither surprising nor particularly blameworthy if participants were to lie to researchers.

As you say: ‘My interest is in facilitating dialogue, not requiring that everyone involved agree but instead accept each other’s differences in order to find common ground.’

My point was just that I don’t see that you need to commit yourself to a problematic relativism to pursue that interest. For that matter, I don’t really see why you need to accept relativism in order to avoid attempts at arriving at moral bottom lines. I can see that such attempts would be most unhelpful and not very interesting!

]]> By: Laura Agustin http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/alternate-ethics-or-telling-lies-to-researchers#comment-733 Laura Agustin Fri, 15 May 2009 09:38:06 +0000 http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/?p=83#comment-733 Ethical review processes don't exist everywhere and where they do are highly problematic. In poorer countries, people often end up as objects of research without understanding how or why, going along with gatekeepers or attracted by treats or promises of a free test, etc. Cultural relativism is certainly a guiding principle of my work and much anthropology. My understanding does not come from reading philosophy but from seeing how attempts to arrive at moral bottom lines stop conversations about prostitution and sex work. My interest is in facilitating dialogue, not requiring that everyone involved agree but instead accept each other's differences in order to find common ground. Ethical review processes don’t exist everywhere and where they do are highly problematic. In poorer countries, people often end up as objects of research without understanding how or why, going along with gatekeepers or attracted by treats or promises of a free test, etc.

Cultural relativism is certainly a guiding principle of my work and much anthropology. My understanding does not come from reading philosophy but from seeing how attempts to arrive at moral bottom lines stop conversations about prostitution and sex work. My interest is in facilitating dialogue, not requiring that everyone involved agree but instead accept each other’s differences in order to find common ground.

]]> By: crossroadsvirgil http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/alternate-ethics-or-telling-lies-to-researchers#comment-730 crossroadsvirgil Thu, 14 May 2009 10:15:44 +0000 http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/?p=83#comment-730 Hi, Interesting post. I have a couple of queries though. One was the assertion that it is usually the case that that research respondents have 'not usually been given any choice about participating'. Is that really true? If so, then the institutional ethics review processes are not doing their job-- which is to make sure that participants do have that choice. Secondly. Why do we have to reject any notion of a universal ethics in order to hold that respondents are morally justified in withholding sensitive information or lying to researchers? I mean, sure, Kant wouldn't approve, but we can accept that ethical considerations apply to everybody without agreeing with him. I would think there would be a good case for holding that this sort of withholding was justified (and therefore ethical) within any reasonable view of ethics. A couple of points are often missed about moral relativism. One is that we can hold that ethical claims apply to everyone without thereby denying that other people and cultures have a different view on these issues then we do-- ethical universalism need not entail cultural imperialism. The logic of moral relativism is such that it makes dialogue impossible. If we accept that some activity is 'okay for them' it means we are unable to engage with 'them' in a way which allows that they might have insights which should change how we act. It also means that there is no way to fix ethical disputes through dialogue (if what is right is only relative to a culture there is no way for there to be a dialectical connect between what they think is right or wrong and what we do). Hi,

Interesting post. I have a couple of queries though. One was the assertion that it is usually the case that that research respondents have ‘not usually been given any choice about participating’. Is that really true? If so, then the institutional ethics review processes are not doing their job– which is to make sure that participants do have that choice.

Secondly. Why do we have to reject any notion of a universal ethics in order to hold that respondents are morally justified in withholding sensitive information or lying to researchers? I mean, sure, Kant wouldn’t approve, but we can accept that ethical considerations apply to everybody without agreeing with him. I would think there would be a good case for holding that this sort of withholding was justified (and therefore ethical) within any reasonable view of ethics.

A couple of points are often missed about moral relativism. One is that we can hold that ethical claims apply to everyone without thereby denying that other people and cultures have a different view on these issues then we do– ethical universalism need not entail cultural imperialism.

The logic of moral relativism is such that it makes dialogue impossible. If we accept that some activity is ‘okay for them’ it means we are unable to engage with ‘them’ in a way which allows that they might have insights which should change how we act. It also means that there is no way to fix ethical disputes through dialogue (if what is right is only relative to a culture there is no way for there to be a dialectical connect between what they think is right or wrong and what we do).

]]>