Reflections on Relational Ethics: Toward an Ethic of Prevention
- Reflections on Relational Ethics:Toward an Ethic of Prevention
ethics, interreligious dialogue, family therapy, prevention, relationships, motivation, social justice, social responsibility, theology, public health
We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
Martin Luther King, Jr.1
This brief contribution is offered with a deep sense of appreciation for the enduring colleagueship of Professor Leonard Swidler and profound gratitude for his guidance during my doctoral program as I chose a path that navigated the worlds of health care, theology, ethics, and interreligious dialogue. Over the years, this complex interweaving of relationships has served as my living laboratory for ethical reflection. It remains my conviction that the central task of ethics is to strengthen and preserve the human claim on relationship through the continual creation of trust options for the future.
In a recent conversation with a good friend of the Jewish faith, I expressed my deep concern about events in Palestine. He responded, “They need to talk to each other.” Well, I thought, that is obvious and perhaps a little dismissive. However, upon reflection, it is not so obvious. “Talking to each other” is exactly the point. Without the initiating approach to another, there can be no possibility of a response, and without the possibility of a response there is no possibility of a trustworthy relationship. “Talking to each other” is essentially a human claim on relationship. However, building upon that claim requires the corresponding obligation to consider the needs, interests, and experiences of relating partners.
The term “relational” is subject to many interpretations among ethicists who use it. My own use of the term is grounded in the understanding that all relationships are composed of two or more contraposed sides and that no one side can ever be the measure of the whole of any relationship. Trustworthy relating, then, requires the integration of personal freedom and due consideration for others in our relational world.2
This understanding of a relational ethic derives from my study of families and other close relationships and, in particular, from my study and work with Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy in the development and applications of Contextual Family Theory and Therapy.3 In this approach, the family is a living laboratory for working out basic trust issues over time. The ethical significance of the family is that it is a system of relationships that bind people to each other over time through the processes of reciprocal care and due consideration—or the converse, binding people through injury and injustice. Because families are dynamic configurations, [End Page 123] the process of relating is dialectical and can only be understood as many-sided and over time.
Relationships merit our attention because the nature, kind, quality, and consequences of our relationships have a life beyond any individual consideration; they unite us to the world and live on in their consequences for the future. They are, in effect, working capital for the future. Economist Robert Reich has described relational capital as the “cumulative trust, experience and knowledge” that form the core of any relationship.4 We have ample evidence that the loss of functional trust in critical relationships on which we all depend threatens the welfare of all of us.
The recent response to the Ebola epidemic is a case in point. The initial response was marked by confusion at all levels of intervention, irrational fear that ignored science-based knowledge, and a lack of preparedness for a major health threat that quickly crossed borders. Only when the affected parties began to see this in global terms (more relational terms), did they simultaneously begin to identify and address the social, cultural, economic, biological, and environmental determinants. It was necessary to build sufficient “functional trust” and political will to sustain needed relationships while investigating causes and associations, mobilize a cadre of health workers, engage local communities, communicate information truthfully and transparently, invest in finding a “vaccine,” and, eventually, prevent new incidents.5 The resulting interventions have been effective enough to contain the epidemic but not to eradicate it. The question, then, remains: Will there be sufficient “relational capital” to sustain the effort...
