> Barbara, you have a right to your opinion too! But how do you
> conclude that MD violated the man's rights as a human being?
>
> Nancy

Nancy,  although I am actually a situation ethicist, I must say that I
tend more towards formalism than most feminist philosophers, in
the sense that I do base myself on formal principles, which I then
modulate according to circumstances; not, like many others, on
the concrete situation itself, from which I think it is much more
difficult to get to usable general principles.

The principle that I used here is the humanist one that every human
being is unique and invaluable, and cannot be reduced to group
affiliations. Thus every person has the right to respect as an
individual human being, unless s/he has done something to forfeit
this right. Compare: "I don't talk to f... women", "I don't talk to f...
men"  "I don't talk to f... niggers", "I don't talk to f... whites" etc.
They are all horrifying examples of denying the personhood of
another human being (and we women should know - we have so
often been treated that way).  (You might also compare it to "I have
the right to be honoured because I am a Count", which is the
opposite facet of the same sin against humanity. )

There would have to be an enormously strong circumstantial
explanation to reverse one's ethical stand on a case like this. What I
am saying is that I don't find the ones that have been mentioned as
sufficient. Basically, there have been two:

a) that it was a conscious strategic choice, to "wake people up". I
don't think this is enough. I brought up the Palestinian comparison -
 not to say that being killed by a bomb is the same as being told to
f... off - but to remind us of the horror that can result when this
principle is applied, and of its questionability as a political strategy.
I think that, when considering such a strategy, one must be very
careful not to fall into the trap of rationalising what is simply a
destructive expression of anger, a thirst for revenge.

b) that it is explained by Mary's past, the hurts she suffered. That
is a cause for sympathy and exoneration, but not for ethical
justification. Would one condemn the mother of a child killed by a
drunk driver, if she goes and shoots the driver? But would one
consider this as an ethically correct action?

I am afraid this is really becoming long and involved. If anyone
thinks this thread is getting too much, we could perhaps
pursue it off-list?

Cheers,
Barbara