> Why should "structuralism" need an ethical doctrine at all?
By "ethical doctrine" I meant only the ethical conclusions deducible from a given set of ontological premises, i.e. moral relativism is an "ethical doctrine" in this sense.
The conclusion that I ought to choose to be tolerant or that I ought not to choose to be cruel can't be consistently deduced from ontological premises that have no logical space for either choice or ethical criteria on which to base choice.
Butler's idea of "performativity," for instance, has no logical space for the idea of a "will proper." It "contests the very notion of the subject": "There is no 'I' that can stand apart from the prevailing moral matrix."
> It is important to distinguish performance from performativity: the
> former presumes a subject, but the latter contests the very notion of
> the subject. The place where I try to clarify this is toward the
> beginning of my essay "Critically Queer", in Bodies that Matter, I
> begin with the Foucauldian premise that power works in part through
> discourse and it works in part to produce and destabilise subjects.
> But then, when one starts to think carefully about how discourse might
> be said to produce a subject, it's clear that one's already talking
> about a certain figure or trope of production. It is at this point
> that it's useful to turn to the notion of performativity, and
> performative speech acts in particular - understood as those speech
> acts that bring into being that which they name. This is the moment in
> which discourse becomes productive in a fairly specific way. So what
> I'm trying to do is think about the performativity as that aspect of
> discourse that has the capacity to produce what it names. Then I take
> a further step, through the Derridean rewriting of Austin, and suggest
> that this production actually always happens through a certain kind of
> repetition and recitation. So if you want the ontology of this, I
> guess performativity is the vehicle through which ontological effects
> are established. Performativity is the discursive mode by which
> ontological effects are installed. Something like that.
> <http://www.theory.org.uk/but-int1.htm>
But she makes ethical claims that contradict this idea.
> Judith Butler GRD '84, a well-known theorist of power, gender and
> identity, spoke in front of an audience of about 150 at the Whitney
> Humanities Center Monday about her recent philosophical research on
> ethical violence and theories of individual moral and ethical
> responsibility.
>
> Butler touched on the inherent tensions between morality and social
> situations.
>
> She talked about the notion of subject formation -- how individuals
> form themselves in relation to certain social norms -- mentioning that
> individuals are embedded within certain social contexts and social
> norms influence people's moral principles.
>
> "There is no 'I' that can stand apart from the prevailing moral
> matrix," Butler said.
>
> Butler said she thinks a moral theories based on personal will can
> become morally "narcissitic" because the world is full of "unwilled"
> things. She said she thinks it is problematic for people to apply
> moral frameworks or social norms to their daily lives in situations in
> which the norms are no longer applicable.
>
> "When the collective ethos is no longer shared, it can only impose
> claims to commonality through violent means," Butler said. "[The
> precepts] are dead things that are circulating among the living."
> <http://yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=23680>
If "there is no 'I' that can stand apart from the prevailing moral matrix," then there is no 'I' that can "apply moral frameworks or social norms to their daily lives in situations in which the norms are no longer applicable" and no 'I' that "can only impose claims to commonality through violent means." Moreover, the premises do not provide ethical criteria on which to base an ethical judgment of the "perfomative act" of "imposing claims to commonality through violent means."
Apart from being self-contradictory, the suggestion that it's "narcissistic" and "problematic for people to apply moral frameworks or social norms to their daily lives in situations in which the norms are no longer applicable" implies people ought to acquiesce in the following "social norms" in cultural contexts where they constitute "the prevailing moral matrix"
> EXCERPTS FROM THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CHECHNYA
> Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 2000
>
> CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS
>
>
>
> Capital punishment shall be executed by beheading, or by beating with
> stones, on in the way in which the criminal killed his victim.
>
>
> PUNISHMENT IN KIND
>
>
> Punishment in kind is the punishment of the criminal, who deliberately
> committed this or other crime, in the same manner as he committed his
> crime. The right to execute punishment in kind can be claimed first
> and foremost by the victim of the crime or his/her close relatives.
>
>
> MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT IN KIND
>
>
> Punishment in kind in case of wounding shall be executed in accordance
> with the number of wounds inflicted to different organs of the victim,
> and in accordance with the principle of bigger crime encompassing the
> smaller crime, with the exception of cases when the wounds and
> injuries were inflicted by the criminal to the victim with the purpose
> of punishment. In such cases the criminal shall be punished with
> double amputation, when first the smaller, and then the bigger parts
> are amputated.
>
>
> If the criminal cut off the same organs from several victims
> simultaneously, and if punishment in kind is afforded for this crime,
> he shall undergo such punishment if at least one of the victims so
> demands, which does not deprive other victims of the right to demand
> full or partial compensation depending on the situation.
>
>
> CLOSE OF RELATIVES THE VICTIM WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE PUNISHMENT
> IN KIND
>
>
> The close relatives of the victim, who have the right to execute
> punishment in kind, are the persons who are his/her inheritors as of
> the victim s death.
>
>
> The state shall assume the function of close relatives if the victim
> has no such relatives, or if their whereabouts is unknown, or if their
> return is improbable.
>
>
> FLAGELLATION
>
>
> If the crime under consideration does not provide for punishment in
> accordance with the provisions of the Shariah, the verdicts involving
> corporal punishment shall not be passed on persons above 60, as well
> as the ill, because such punishment could endanger their life or
> health.
>
>
> If punishment by flagellation cannon be applied owing to the advanced
> age or bad health of the criminal, this punishment shall be replaced
> with some other punishment.
>
>
> COMPENSATION FOR MURDER, INJURY OR WOUND (DIY A)
>
>
> The full size of diy a equals 100 cows or a sum of money equivalent to
> their cost, periodically determined by the Supreme Justice after
> consultations with competent agencies.
>
>
> PUNISHMENT OF MINORS
>
>
> Adolescents who have reached the age of 10 shall be flagellated for
> educational purposes (the number of leashes shall not exceed 20).
>
>
> DRINKING AND DISTURBANCES
>
>
> Any person who drinks alcohol, stores or produces it shall be punished
> by flagellation, with 40 leashes if the guilty party professes Islam.
>
>
> APOSTASY
>
>
> A person guilty of a crime qualified as apostasy shall be offered to
> repent, and the court shall establish a certain deadline for this. If
> the guilty party, who is not a neophyte of Islam, persists in the
> crime, he/she shall by punished by execution.
>
>
> PREMEDITATED MURDER
>
>
> Any person who committed a crime qualified as premeditated murder
> shall be punished by execution as punishment in kind. If punishment in
> kind cannot be applied, the guilty party shall be punished by
> imprisonment for up to ten years, and shall pay an established
> compensation.
>
>
> ABORTION
>
>
> Any person that deliberately takes action which result in the abortion
> of the unborn child of any woman, shall be judged guilty of a crime
> that is qualified as an abortion, unless the abortion was carried out
> in one of the following cases:
>
>
> if the abortion was performed to save the life of the mother; or
>
>
> if the pregnancy occurred as a result of a rape, and the fetus was at
> least ninety days old, and the woman wanted to have an abortion in
> such circumstances.
>
>
> ADULTERY
>
>
> Guilty of a crime qualified as adultery shall be:
>
>
> any man who had sexual relations with any woman to whom he is not
> legally bound;
>
>
> any woman who allowed any man, with whom she is not legally bound, to
> have sexual relations with her.
>
>
> Sexual relations shall be regarded as complete if the head of the male
> organ, or whatever corresponds to it, entered the sexual organs of the
> woman.
>
>
> A marriage that is regarded by the general consent of law experts as
> invalid shall not be judged as a legal bond.
>
>
> PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY
>
>
> Those guilty of adultery shall be punished by:
>
>
> execution through beating with stones, if the guilty was virgin before
> the crime;
>
>
> flagellation with 100 leashes, if the guilty was not virgin before the
> crime.
>
>
> In addition to punishment by flagellation, the man who was not virgin
> before the crime may be also punished with an exile of one year.
>
>
> Virginity in this case is the maintenance of legal matrimonial
> relations at the time when the crime of adultery was committed, or in
> case of past matrimonial relations.
>
>
> SODOMY
>
>
> Those guilty of crime that is qualified as sodomy shall be punished by
> flagellation with 100 leashes. Other form of punishment may be
> imprisonment for no more than five years.
>
>
> INDECENT BEHAVIOUR INSULTING SOCIAL MORALS
>
>
> Any person guilty of doing indecent things or acting indecently in a
> public place, which insults social morals, or even those who are not
> dressed properly or whose dress insults social morals, owing to which
> the surrounding people feel embarrassment and discomfort, shall be
> punished by flagellation with no more than 40 leashes, or shall pay a
> fine, or both.
>
>
> LICENTIOUS ACTIONS
>
>
> Those who go to a whorehouse, where they most probably intended to
> have sexual relations or get something for sexual relations, shall be
> judged guilty of a crime qualified as licentious actions. Those guilty
> of such crime shall be punished by flagellation with no more than 100
> leashes, or imprisonment for no more than three years.
>
>
> A whorehouse is any place prepared for the meeting of men, women or
> men and women, who are not married couples or relatives, in conditions
> where sexual acts become most probable.
>
>
> THEFT
>
>
> Those guilty of theft punishable in accordance with the provisions of
> the Shariah shall have their right hand cut off. If the criminal was
> found guilty of this crime for a second time, the punishment shall be
> the cutting off of his/her left foot.
>
>
> ORGANS AND WOUNDS FOR WHICH PUNISHMENT IN KIND IS APPLIED
>
>
> A seeing eye, if it was fully removed.
>
>
> The nose up to the place where it joins the bridge.
>
>
> An ear, if it was cut off completely. If the crime concerns a part of
> an ear, punishment in kind shall not be applied.
>
>
> A tooth, if the examination reveals that no other tooth will grow in
> its place.
>
>
> The tongue, if it was cut off completely.
>
>
> An arm, if it was cut off at the junction. If cut off above the
> junction, the victims shall receive compensation for the additional
> part.
>
>
> The same concerns punishment in kind for leg injuries.
>
>
> The fingertips and fingers of hands and feet, if they were cut off at
> the junction.
>
>
> The sexual organ, if it was cut off completely or below the head.
>
>
> The balls; if one of the balls remained intact, the guilty will have
> only one of his balls cut off.
>
>
> Any wound going as deep as the bone.
>
> <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2004w24/msg00066.htm>
Ted