We define the other in opposition to ourselves: the other is what is not me. That is, everything that is not self is other. Since there are degrees of not-self - ranging from your very close friends on one end of the spectrum, to foreigners with wildly different customs or aliens on the other end - there must also be a range of other.
Sometimes, we're willing to give those towards the far end of the spectrum - let's call them the extreme other - a break when it comes to moral relativity. We say they're different, so we can't hold them to our standards.
But where does that line of permissible difference stop? For some people, even the slightest not-other (i.e., anyone who's not you) can't be held to the same standards as oneself. For example, Emilio (before and after he leaves the priesthood) holds no one to the same celibacy standards he holds himself to.
But for others, anyone who's a close other should be held to their own standards. For example, Voelker has a pretty strict idea about what all Jesuits should do.
I guess I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, except that the whole idea of "other" is a pretty relative concept.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment