Escaping moral dualism needs both rules and particular relationship, not either alone

Evidence

Contra Cheney (1987), who appears to advocate the abandonment of all general ethical concepts and the adoption of a ‘contextual’ ethics based in pure particularity and emotionality. We do need both to reintegrate the personal and particular and re-evaluate more positively its role, but overcoming moral dualism will not simply amount to an affirmation of the personal in the moral sphere or of a ruleless ethics. Rules, as Grimshaw (1986:209) points out, are not incompatible with recognition of special relationships and responsibility to particular others. The problem is not rules themselves, but rules which demand the discarding of the personal, the emotional and the particular, or which aim at self-containment. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 787

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Kantian universalisation secretly depends on empathy and cannot stand alone — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 785; Escaping each dualistic feature requires a corresponding reformation of nonhierarchical difference — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 241; Holism and dualism should be fluid complements, not rigid opposites (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Reversal that revalues the subordinated identity without restructuring it stays trapped in dualism #expands (0.82) — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 244
• Holism and dualism should be fluid complements, not rigid opposites #expands (0.78)
• Binding moral constraints depend on social integration, not abstract principle #corroborates (0.75) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1648